ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Neuroprotective effects of noble gases following acquired brain injury: a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Noble gases were chemically inert elements that have attracted increasing interest because of their potential neuroprotective properties. Among them, xenon had long been used as an inhalational anesthetic, while xenon, argon, and helium had also been investigated for possible neuroprotective effects. This narrative review focused on acquired brain injury, particularly ischemic stroke, post-cardiac arrest hypoxic-ischemic brain injury, and traumatic brain injury. Preclinical studies had suggested that several noble gases might reduce secondary neuronal injury, although the strength and consistency of evidence varied across gases and experimental models. Proposed mechanisms included attenuation of excitotoxicity, apoptosis, oxidative stress, and neuroinflammation, although these pathways had not been fully clarified for all gases. This review summarizes and compares the available preclinical and early clinical evidence on xenon, argon, and helium in acquired brain injury. Among these gases, xenon currently had the strongest and most consistent evidence base, whereas evidence for argon remained heterogeneous and evidence for helium was limited. Although the preclinical findings were promising, clinical translation remains limited, and further standardized studies were needed to define efficacy, safety, timing of administration, and feasible delivery strategies.
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.