Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42197176›Full record

ReviewMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2026

A Microfluidic Framework for Neuroprotective Compound Triage Across Ischemia and Neurodegeneration.

Julia Anchimowicz, Slawomir Jakiela

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Julia AnchimowiczDepartment of Physics and Biophysics, Institute of Biology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0009-0002-7648-0197
Slawomir JakielaDepartment of Physics and Biophysics, Institute of Biology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-1557-1650

Funding

National Science Centre 2019/34/E/ST4/00281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microfluidic systems are increasingly used in neuroprotection research, but their clearest value may be to show why candidate compounds fail before costly downstream models. This critical framework review examines CNS-relevant microfluidic studies through a within-program triage logic linking chemistry-aware prescreening, blood-brain barrier/neurovascular unit (BBB/NVU) filtering, and timed validation in neuronal ischemia/reperfusion models, and treats non-CNS organ-on-a-chip and analytical microfluidic studies as engineering analogies only. The available evidence most strongly supports BBB/NVU chips as exposure- and safety-aware filters and compartmentalized neuronal oxygen-glucose deprivation platforms as timing-sensitive validation tools; droplet microfluidics contributes mainly upstream through dense dose mapping, aggregation assays and counterscreens for assay interference. A compound-centered reading also suggests that apparent activity often fails for distinct reasons, including timing mismatch, poor solubility, surface adsorption, optical artifact, inadequate multicellular context, or loss of efficacy under transport-aware testing. Taken together, the literature supports a cautious, within-program triage logic in which microfluidics is used not as a universal disease model, but as an operational framework for exposing transport, barrier, timing and assay liabilities early in neuroprotective discovery.

Indexed as

MicrofluidicsNeurodegenerative DiseasesNeuroprotective AgentsAnimalsBlood-Brain BarrierHumansLab-On-A-Chip DevicesMicrophysiological SystemsNeuroprotective Agentsblood-brain barrierischemia-reperfusionmicrofluidicsmitochondrianervous-system organ-on-a-chipneurodegenerationneurovascular unitorgan-on-a-chipphenotypic screeningstroke

Identifiers

PMID42197176
PMCPMC13210123

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.