↓ Skip to main content

Nanomedicines for cancer therapy: state-of-the-art and limitations to pre-clinical studies that hinder future developments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Chemistry, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
188 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
Nanomedicines for cancer therapy: state-of-the-art and limitations to pre-clinical studies that hinder future developments
Published in
Frontiers in Chemistry, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fchem.2014.00069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlene M. Dawidczyk, Luisa M. Russell, Peter C. Searson

Abstract

The ability to efficiently deliver a drug or gene to a tumor site is dependent on a wide range of factors including circulation time, interactions with the mononuclear phagocyte system, extravasation from circulation at the tumor site, targeting strategy, release from the delivery vehicle, and uptake in cancer cells. Nanotechnology provides the possibility of creating delivery systems where the design constraints are decoupled, allowing new approaches for reducing the unwanted side effects of systemic delivery, increasing tumor accumulation, and improving efficacy. The physico-chemical properties of nanoparticle-based delivery platforms introduce additional complexity associated with pharmacokinetics, tumor accumulation, and biodistribution. To assess the impact of nanoparticle-based delivery systems, we first review the design strategies and pharmacokinetics of FDA-approved nanomedicines. Next we review nanomedicines under development, summarizing the range of nanoparticle platforms, strategies for targeting, and pharmacokinetics. We show how the lack of uniformity in preclinical trials prevents systematic comparison and hence limits advances in the field.

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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 181 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 25%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Master 22 12%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 45 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 13%
Chemistry 23 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 9%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 54 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,784,335
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Chemistry
#1,177
of 5,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,451
of 235,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Chemistry
#10
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,897 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 235,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 64% of its contemporaries.