↓ Skip to main content

Anticancer activity of Carica papaya: A review

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anticancer activity of Carica papaya: A review
Published in
Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/mnfr.201200388
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thao T. T. Nguyen, Paul N. Shaw, Marie‐Odile Parat, Amitha K. Hewavitharana

Abstract

Carica papaya is widely cultivated in tropical and subtropical countries and is used as food as well as traditional medicine to treat a range of diseases. Increasing anecdotal reports of its effects in cancer treatment and prevention, with many successful cases, have warranted that these pharmacological properties be scientifically validated. A bibliographic search was conducted using the key words "papaya", "anticancer", and "antitumor" along with cross-referencing. No clinical or animal cancer studies were identified and only seven in vitro cell-culture-based studies were reported; these indicate that C. papaya extracts may alter the growth of several types of cancer cell lines. However, many studies focused on specific compounds in papaya and reported bioactivity including anticancer effects. This review summarizes the results of extract-based or specific compound-based investigations and emphasizes the aspects that warrant future research to explore the bioactives in C. papaya for their anticancer activities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 237 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 14%
Student > Master 28 12%
Researcher 15 6%
Other 13 5%
Other 49 20%
Unknown 60 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 25 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 10%
Chemistry 23 10%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 77 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,960,936
of 24,704,144 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Nutrition & Food Research
#333
of 2,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,835
of 288,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Nutrition & Food Research
#6
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,704,144 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.