ReviewCells2025
Graphene and Its Derivatives as Modulators of Macrophage Polarization in Cutaneous Wound Healing.
Review in Cells, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Potential of a Graphene Monolayer in Macrophage Polarization Using RAW 264.7 Cells.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Graphene-based materials (GBMs), owing to their excellent biomedical properties, can significantly advance the development of nano-biodressings. Their unique physicochemical features, such as high surface area, tunable functionalization, antimicrobial activity, and ability to interact with immune cells, suggest that GBMs may influence key biological processes involved in tissue repair, particularly the immune response. Building on this growing evidence, the aim of this review is to demonstrate that GBMs can serve as tools for modulating macrophage polarization as a strategy for promoting wound healing. We present the mechanisms by which GBMs penetrate macrophages and discuss the effects of GBMs, either in suspension or as scaffolds/grounds/substrates, on macrophage polarization. Moreover, we propose mechanisms underlying the actions of different forms of GBMs on macrophage polarization. Nevertheless, a multitude of uncertainties and significant challenges remain. Chief among these are the pronounced heterogeneity of GBM subtypes, the necessity for exhaustive characterization and in-depth analysis, the formulation of robust experimental designs, and the careful selection of models capable of accurately delineating macrophage populations and guiding their polarization toward achieving targeted wound healing outcomes. This review attempts to systematize and clarify these issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.