Evidence mapPaperPMID 41594806Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2026

Neurobiophilia.

Mohamed Hesham Khalil, Koen Steemers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mohamed Hesham KhalilNeurocivitas Lab, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PX, UK.ORCID 0009-0005-7754-6479
Koen SteemersNeurocivitas Lab, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PX, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8135-158X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite unprecedented disconnection from nature and increased urbanisation, the brain still shows an affinity for nature. However, biophilia lacks a neuroscience foundation despite growing evidence of how the brain changes in response to the contrasting influences of urban and natural environments. To address this timely gap, this paper establishes Neurobiophilia through four objectives. First, it identifies seven neuro-needs (7NNs) and establishes their hierarchical order and interconnected outcomes. Second, it maps how natural environments fulfil each of the brain's 7NNs. Third, it explores whether climate change is turning nature into a harmful environment for the brain, specifically with respect to temperature extremes. Fourth, it examines how built environments vary in their enrichment with respect to the 7NNs. This paper highlights critical environmental enrichment challenges in natural environments caused by climate change and in built environments. The novel Neurobiophilia framework established herein identifies these gaps and provides recommendations to achieve neurosustainability through environmental enrichment that sustains adaptive brain responses throughout the lifespan.

Indexed as

biophilic architecture and designbuilt environmentclimate changeenvironmental neurosciencenatureneurosustainabilityurbanisation

Identifiers

PMID41594806
PMCPMC12839215

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.