Have any peer‑reviewed scientific papers been published reporting results from Neuralink’s human implants?
Executive summary
No peer‑reviewed scientific paper reporting results from Neuralink’s human implants is documented as published in the provided reporting; what exists in these sources is a company submission of human clinical data to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in October 2025 and earlier peer‑reviewed Neuralink papers that report preclinical (animal and engineering) results rather than human‑implant outcomes [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the reporting actually shows: submission, not (yet) publication
Multiple outlets report that Neuralink submitted a manuscript describing human implant results to a high‑profile journal — specifically the New England Journal of Medicine — in October 2025, a move framed as the company’s first attempt to place human clinical data into the peer‑reviewed literature [1] [2] [5]. Those reports note that the submission covers early safety and outcome data from a small number of implanted patients (three patients explicitly mentioned in several accounts), and that Barrow Neurological Institute executives disclosed the submission at a conference while declining to share detailed results [5] [6].
2. Why “submitted” is not the same as “peer‑reviewed and published”
News stories and press summaries emphasize that submission to NEJM would, if accepted, represent Neuralink’s first peer‑reviewed human data publication — language that implicitly acknowledges the difference between sending a manuscript for review and achieving publication after peer review and editorial acceptance [1] [7]. None of the provided sources document the journal’s acceptance notice, the appearance of the article in a journal issue, or a DOI; they uniformly describe a submission and the prospect of peer review rather than a completed, published peer‑reviewed paper [2] [1] [7].
3. What has been peer‑reviewed so far: engineering and animal work
Neuralink’s earlier peer‑reviewed work documented in the literature focuses on engineering, methods, and preclinical animal data, not on human trial outcomes; for example, a detailed paper describing the high‑channel‑count implant platform and implantation robot was published and is available in the scientific record and repositories, with data from rat and other preclinical implants [3] [4]. These prior publications establish technical claims and safety/performance metrics in animals but do not substitute for peer‑reviewed human clinical results [3] [4].
4. Independent context and skepticism in the scientific community
Reporting from Nature and other academic summaries underscores that the first human implant were publicly announced in 2024 but drew criticism for limited transparency, and that many in the research community wanted more open data and peer‑reviewed disclosure of human outcomes [8]. Academic reviews and commentaries also highlight technical issues of translation from animal to human work — for example, concerns about electrode displacement reported in early human work and the need for long‑term assessment — which further reinforce why peer‑reviewed human data would be consequential if and when it appears [9] [10].
5. Competing narratives and possible agendas
Commercial and PR incentives push for high‑visibility milestones — submission to NEJM is itself a public relations and credibility milestone — while independent scientists and competitors have historically published human BCI data through academic collaborations (a point raised in reporting that compares Neuralink’s path with groups like Blackrock) [2] [9]. Sources attribute the NEJM submission to Neuralink and partner clinicians but also quote clinical partners who withheld detailed findings at conference disclosure, suggesting a mix of scientific disclosure and controlled messaging [5] [6].
6. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
Based on the material provided, there is no confirmed, peer‑reviewed, published paper reporting Neuralink’s human implant results; what is documented is a submission to NEJM (October 2025) and a body of peer‑reviewed preclinical/engineering work [1] [2] [3] [4]. The sources do not supply evidence that the NEJM paper has completed peer review and been published, and reporting also notes limited public detail about the submitted findings [5] [6]. If acceptance and publication occur, that would change the record; this analysis reflects only the reporting available in the provided sources.