ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2026
Nanoparticles Navigating the Blood-Brain Barrier for Neurodegenerative Therapy.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The blood-brain barrier (BBB) blocks most drugs from entering the brain. Over 98% of small-molecule drugs and nearly all biologics fail to cross this barrier. Nanoparticles (NPs) provide multiple ways to bypass the BBB. These include receptor-mediated transcytosis, adsorptive-mediated transport, and intranasal delivery. NPs can also modify disease-related pathways. For example, they promote amyloid-β clearance, reduce tau phosphorylation, and reprogram neuroimmune responses. Many preclinical studies have shown promising results in Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's diseases. However, no NP-based therapy has moved beyond early-stage clinical trials. Several issues remain unresolved. Direct comparisons between different NP platforms are lacking. The long-term toxicity of NPs in the brain is not well understood. Animal models also do not accurately reflect human disease. We suggest that future work should focus on standardized characterization, better predictive models, and clinical trial designs that address NP diversity. Researchers should also compare NP therapies with existing treatments in a rigorous manner.
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.