The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Temporary Disruption of the Blood–Brain Barrier by Use of Ultrasound and Microbubbles: Safety and Efficacy Evaluation in Rhesus Macaques
Open accessAbstract
The blood–brain barrier (BBB) prevents entry of most drugs into the brain and is a major hurdle to the use of drugs for brain tumors and other central nervous system disorders. Work in small animals has shown that ultrasound combined with an intravenously circulating microbubble agent can temporarily permeabilize the BBB. Here, we evaluated whether this targeted drug delivery method can be applied safely, reliably, and in a controlled manner on rhesus macaques using a focused ultrasound system. We identified a clear safety window during which BBB disruption could be produced without evident tissue damage, and the acoustic pressure amplitude where the probability for BBB disruption was 50% and was found to be half of the value that would produce tissue damage. Acoustic emission measurements seem promising for predicting BBB disruption and damage. In addition, we conducted repeated BBB disruption to central visual field targets over several weeks in animals trained to conduct complex visual acuity tasks. All animals recovered from each session without behavioral deficits, visual deficits, or loss in visual acuity. Together, our findings show that BBB disruption can be reliably and repeatedly produced without evident histologic or functional damage in a clinically relevant animal model using a clinical device. These results therefore support clinical testing of this noninvasive-targeted drug delivery method. Cancer Res; 72(14); 3652–63. ©2012 AACR.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hynynen, K., McDannold, N., Sheikov, N. A., Jolesz, F. A., & Vykhodtseva, N. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.06.046 · Cited by 679
Self-citationTung, Y.-S., Marquet, F., Teichert, T., Ferrera, V., & Konofagou, E. E. (2011) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/1.3580763 · Cited by 119
Cited by
CNS Metastases in Breast Cancer: Old Challenge, New Frontiers
Lin, N. U., Amiri-Kordestani, L., Palmieri, D., Liewehr, D. J., & Steeg, P. S. (2013) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-0790 · Cited by 1,286
Crossing the blood-brain barrier with nanoparticles
Zhou, Y., Peng, Z., Seven, E. S., & Leblanc, R. M. (2018) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2017.12.015 · Cited by 837
Clinical trial of blood-brain barrier disruption by pulsed ultrasound
Carpentier, A., Canney, M., Vignot, A., Reina, V., Beccaria, K., Horodyckid, C., Karachi, C., Leclercq, D., Lafon, C., Chapelon, J.-Y., et al. (2016) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6086 · Cited by 757
The blood-brain barrier: Physiology and strategies for drug delivery
Pandit, R., Chen, L., & Götz, J. (2020) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2019.11.009 · Cited by 651
Nance, E. A., Woodworth, G. F., Sailor, K. A., Shih, T.-Y., Xu, Q., Swaminathan, G., Xiang, D., Eberhart, C., & Hanes, J. (2012) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3003594 · Cited by 649
Metadata
- Authors
- McDannold, N., Arvanitis, C. D., Vykhodtseva, N., & Livingstone, M. S.
- Venue
- Cancer Research
- Published
- 2012-07-15
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 3652-3663
- ISSN
- 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-7445
- OpenAlex
- W2114596635
- Cited by
- 588
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Temporary Disruption of the Blood–Brain Barrier by Use of Ultrasound and Microbubbles: Safety and Efficacy Evaluation in Rhesus Macaques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-0128
- The paper
- McDannold, N., Arvanitis, C. D., Vykhodtseva, N., & Livingstone, M. S. (2012). Temporary Disruption of the Blood–Brain Barrier by Use of Ultrasound and Microbubbles: Safety and Efficacy Evaluation in Rhesus Macaques. Cancer Research. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-0128
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.