ReviewMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Microfluidic Framework for Neuroprotective Compound Triage Across Ischemia and Neurodegeneration.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.