ReviewPhysiological reports2026
Mechanisms and integrative machine learning approaches to blood-brain barrier biomarker profiling for personalized ischemic stroke management.
Review in Physiological 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ischemic stroke remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption playing a central role in vasogenic edema, neuroinflammation, hemorrhagic transformation, and secondary neuronal injury. The BBB is a specialized neurovascular unit composed of endothelial tight junctions, pericytes, astrocytes, and basement membrane structures that undergo coordinated molecular and cellular changes during ischemia-reperfusion injury, generating diverse biomarker signatures including endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, inflammatory mediators, and extracellular matrix remodeling. However, conventional biomarkers and imaging approaches fail to fully capture the dynamic and heterogeneous nature of BBB injury. Meaningful interpretation of BBB-derived biomarkers requires mechanistic understanding of their molecular and cellular origins, making the integration of BBB pathophysiology with computational modeling essential for clinically relevant translation. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) enable integration of neuroimaging, molecular, clinical, and multi-omics data to characterize BBB dysfunction and improve prediction of stroke outcomes. ML-based models have demonstrated value in identifying BBB-related signatures associated with infarct progression, hemorrhagic transformation, and functional recovery, while deep neural networks enhance lesion segmentation and prognostic modeling. Despite this progress, challenges including data heterogeneity, limited longitudinal datasets, and model interpretability remain barriers to clinical translation. This review integrates the molecular and cellular mechanisms of BBB disruption with machine learning approaches for BBB biomarker profiling, highlighting a pathway toward biologically informed, personalized ischemic stroke management.
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.