↓ Skip to main content

Comment on Shvedova et al. (2016), “gender differences in murine pulmonary responses elicited by cellulose nanocrystals”

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Comment on Shvedova et al. (2016), “gender differences in murine pulmonary responses elicited by cellulose nanocrystals”
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12989-016-0170-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo Anne Shatkin, Günter Oberdörster

Abstract

A recent publication in "Particle and Fibre Toxicology" reported on the gender differences in pulmonary toxicity from oro-pharyngeal aspiration of a high dose of cellulose nanocrystals. The study is timely given the growing interest in diverse commercial applications of cellulose nanomaterials, and the need for studies addressing pulmonary toxicity. The results from this study are interesting and can be strengthened with a discussion of how differences in the weights of female and male C57BL/6 mice was accounted for. Without such a discussion, the observed differences could be partially explained by the lower body weights of females, resulting in higher doses than males when standardized to body weight or lung volume. Further, few conclusions can be drawn about the pulmonary toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals given the study design: examination of a single high dose of cellulose nanocrystals, administered as a bolus, without positive or negative controls or low dose comparisons, and at an unphysiological and high dose rate. Simulating the bolus type delivery by inhalation would require a highly unrealistic exposure concentration in the g/m(3) range of extremely short duration. A discussion of these limitations is missing in the paper; further speculative comparisons of cellulose nanocrystals toxicity to asbestos and carbon nanotubes in the abstract are both unwarranted and can be misleading, these materials were neither mentioned in the manuscript, nor evaluated in the study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 23%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Environmental Science 2 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 3 23%
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 05 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,351,881
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#462
of 561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,883
of 311,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 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 561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. 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 311,298 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 17 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.