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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Nanoparticles—Emerging Potential for Managing Leukemia and Lymphoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00079 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raquel Vinhas, Rita Mendes, Alexandra R. Fernandes, Pedro V. Baptista |
| Abstract |
Nanotechnology has become a powerful approach to improve the way we diagnose and treat cancer. In particular, nanoparticles (NPs) possess unique features for enhanced sensitivity and selectivity for earlier detection of circulating cancer biomarkers. In vivo, NPs enhance the therapeutic efficacy of anticancer agents when compared with conventional chemotherapy, improving vectorization and delivery, and helping to overcome drug resistance. Nanomedicine has been mostly focused on solid cancers due to take advantage from the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect experienced by tissues in the close vicinity of tumors, which enhance nanomedicine's accumulation and, consequently, improve efficacy. Nanomedicines for leukemia and lymphoma, where EPR effect is not a factor, are addressed differently from solid tumors. Nevertheless, NPs have provided innovative approaches to simple and non-invasive methodologies for diagnosis and treatment in liquid tumors. In this review, we consider the state of the art on different types of nanoconstructs for the management of liquid tumors, from preclinical studies to clinical trials. We also discuss the advantages of nanoplatforms for theranostics and the central role played by NPs in this combined strategy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 130 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 35 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 45 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,370,803
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#1,949
of 6,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,619
of 439,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#10
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 439,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.