↓ Skip to main content

Biological mechanisms of gold nanoparticle radiosensitization

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Nanotechnology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 164)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
254 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
Biological mechanisms of gold nanoparticle radiosensitization
Published in
Cancer Nanotechnology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12645-017-0026-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soraia Rosa, Chris Connolly, Giuseppe Schettino, Karl T. Butterworth, Kevin M. Prise

Abstract

There has been growing interest in the use of nanomaterials for a range of biomedical applications over the last number of years. In particular, gold nanoparticles (GNPs) possess a number of unique properties that make them ideal candidates as radiosensitizers on the basis of their strong photoelectric absorption coefficient and ease of synthesis. However, despite promising preclinical evidence in vitro supported by a limited amount of in vivo experiments, along with advances in mechanistic understanding, GNPs have not yet translated into the clinic. This may be due to disparity between predicted levels of radiosensitization based on physical action, observed biological response and an incomplete mechanistic understanding, alongside current experimental limitations. This paper provides a review of the current state of the field, highlighting the potential underlying biological mechanisms in GNP radiosensitization and examining the barriers to clinical translation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 252 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 26%
Student > Master 41 16%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 31 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 40 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 45 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 10%
Chemistry 23 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 7%
Other 64 25%
Unknown 51 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 March 2019.
All research outputs
#5,435,138
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Nanotechnology
#18
of 164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,735
of 420,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Nanotechnology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 164 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 420,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.