↓ Skip to main content

Balancing nanotoxicity and returns in health applications: The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Overview of attention for article published in Toxicology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Balancing nanotoxicity and returns in health applications: The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Published in
Toxicology, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.tox.2017.11.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

D.A. Gkika, L. Magafas, P. Cool, J. Braet

Abstract

Over the past 30 years, there have been significant advancements in the field of nanomaterials. The possibility to use them in applications such as cancer treatment is extremely promising; however, the toxicity of many nanomaterials as well as the high costs associated with their use is still a concern. This paper aims to study the connection between nanomaterial toxicity and cost. This synergy may be interpreted as a different version of the classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" game, which in this case attempts to explain the possible outcomes of cooperation versus conflict between science advocating for the use of high-risk, possibly toxic materials due to their high returns, and society that might be dubious about the use of high-risk materials. In an effort to create diverse evaluation methodologies, this work uses a forecast horizon to evaluate the current status and expected future of the nanomaterials market. The historical progress of each market, toxicity information, and possible returns stemming from their use is taken into account to analyze the predictions. Our results suggest various trends for the associated costs and nanotoxicity of the studied materials.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 9 31%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Toxicology
#3,090
of 3,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,234
of 342,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Toxicology
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,389 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.