SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Circulating BDNF in pediatric neurodevelopmental disorders: a meta-analysis of case-control differences and cognitive severity.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has been proposed as a neuroimmune biomarker of cognitive dysfunction in paediatric neurodevelopmental disorders other than autism spectrum disorder, but two related questions remain poorly characterised: whether circulating BDNF differs between affected and unaffected individuals, and whether it tracks the severity of cognitive impairment within affected populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis addressed both questions in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP), intellectual disability (ID), or Down syndrome (DS). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and citation-tracking (snowball) searches identified 340 records. After deduplication and title/abstract screening, 29 records underwent full-text assessment; 7 studies (comprising at least 547 participants) met eligibility criteria. Five comparisons (four studies, five case-control arms, 322 unique participants) reported extractable means and standard deviations and were pooled using Hedges' Results: The case-control comparison yielded a pooled effect size of 0.46 (95% CI: -0.44 to 1.35), which was not statistically significant ( Conclusion: Current evidence does not support circulating BDNF as a reliable case-control or severity biomarker of cognitive impairment in children with CP, ID, or DS. The direction of association is inconsistent even within the same diagnostic category, likely reflecting methodological heterogeneity (assay platform, age-matching of controls) rather than a genuine, replicable biological signal. Age-matched studies using standardised assay protocols are needed before BDNF can be considered for clinical or research use in this population.
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.