↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

The comparative immunotoxicity of mesoporous silica nanoparticles and colloidal silica nanoparticles in mice

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
The comparative immunotoxicity of mesoporous silica nanoparticles and colloidal silica nanoparticles in mice
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, January 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s39534
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sang-Hyun Kim, Lee, Kim, Lee, Taeg Kyu Kwon, Hui-suk Yun, Khang

Abstract

Mesoporous silica (MPS) nanoparticles (NPs), which have a unique pore structure and extremely large surface area and pore volume, have received much attention because of their biomedical application potential. Using MPS NPs for biomedical devices requires the verification of their biocompatibility because the surface area of NPs is one of the most important determinants of toxicity, including the cellular uptake and immune response. We have previously reported that the cytotoxicity and inflammation potential of MPS NPs have been shown to be lower than those of general amorphous colloidal silica (Col) NPs in macrophages, but the low cytotoxicity does not guarantee high biocompatibility in vivo. In this study, we compared the in vivo immunotoxicity of MPS and Col NPs in the mouse model to define the effects of pore structural conditions of silica NPs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 28%
Researcher 14 23%
Other 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 10%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 7 12%

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 13 January 2013.
All research outputs
#2,305,444
of 4,507,280 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#551
of 1,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,531
of 284,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#11
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,280 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 1,146 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 284,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 69% of its contemporaries.