This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

16/100

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Disease mechanisms

Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet

Plain-language summary

Results Most included studies were purely in vitro (n = 18); six combined in vitro and in vivo methods, and two used in vitro and in silico or ex vivo components.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Nelumdeniya, N., Sabalingham, S., Karunathilaka, R., & Jayakody, R. S. (2026). Neuroprotective Effects and Mechanisms of Cannabinoids in In Vitro Cell Models of Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-11027426/v1

Vancouver

Nelumdeniya N, Sabalingham S, Karunathilaka R, Jayakody RS. Neuroprotective Effects and Mechanisms of Cannabinoids in In Vitro Cell Models of Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11027426/v1.

BibTeX

@article{nelumdeniya2026-14f24361,
  author  = {Nelumdeniya, N. and Sabalingham, S. and Karunathilaka, R. and Jayakody, R. S.},
  title   = {{Neuroprotective Effects and Mechanisms of Cannabinoids in In Vitro Cell Models of Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review}},
  journal = {Research Square},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-11027426/v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-11027426/v1}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 18 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Most included studies were purely in vitro (n = 18); six combined in vitro and in vivo methods, and two used in vitro and in silico or ex vivo components.

Study details

Participants18
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 16/100

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 23 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 14 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 23 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	4 / 10	Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	18 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Laboratory or animal study (title names “in vitro”) — scores zero
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	1 / 2	Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	14 / 62	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 14 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 23 out of 100.
Total	23 / 100	Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Disease mechanisms from nearby years

Also tagged “plants”

117 studies in the library carry the topic tag “plants”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 117 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disease mechanisms

See all studies in Disease mechanisms →