↓ Skip to main content

Nanoparticle Interactions with the Immune System: Clinical Implications for Liposome-Based Cancer Chemotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Nanoparticle Interactions with the Immune System: Clinical Implications for Liposome-Based Cancer Chemotherapy
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00416
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ninh M. La-Beck, Alberto A. Gabizon

Abstract

The development of stable and long-circulating liposomes provides protection of the drug cargo from degradation and increases tumor drug delivery, leading to the design of liposome formulations with great potential in cancer therapy. However, despite the sound pharmacologic basis, many liposomal as well as other nanoparticle-based drug formulations have failed to meet regulatory criteria for approval. The question that arises is whether we have missed key liposome-host interactions that can account for the gap between the major pharmacologic advantages in preclinical studies and the modest impact of the clinical effects in humans. We will discuss here the nanoparticle-immune system interactions that may undermine the antitumor effect of the nanodrug formulations and contribute to this gap. To overcome this challenge and increase clinical translation, new preclinical models need to be adopted along with comprehensive immunopharmacologic studies and strategies for patient selection in the clinical phase.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 31%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Master 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Engineering 10 9%
Chemistry 8 7%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 33 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,539,224
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#12,123
of 31,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,752
of 324,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#234
of 415 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 324,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 415 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.