ArticleScientific reports2026
Screening for compounds released from deep brain stimulation probes by contact with a brain simulant.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation involves several neurological conditions in which implantable leads deliver electrical impulses to specific brain regions. While biocompatibility testing is essential for regulatory approval, leachables have not yet been identified. This study investigated extractables and leachables from polyurethane (PU)-insulated DBS probes, shedding light on their safety in clinical contexts. Two types of PUs, polyether (PEU) and polycarbonate urethane (PCU), were placed in contact with a brain phantom for 180 days at 37 °C. We performed an extraction using acetone and n-hexane on parts that were or were not in contact with the phantom to establish extractable profiles and to estimate leachable migration in the phantom. Analyses were performed via gas and liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry and via inductively coupled plasma. Surface characterization was performed before and after contact to explain the differences in leachable migration between both PEU and PCU. The results revealed a decrease in the 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate concentration of 81.6% in the PEU and 62.3% in the PCU. Aluminum was quantifiable only for PEU (acetone extract) and decreased by 43.1% after contact with the simulant. This finding urges the need to conduct an evaluation of leachable migration in patients.
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.