↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Infrared light-absorbing gold/gold sulfide nanoparticles induce cell death in esophageal adenocarcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2013
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 (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Infrared light-absorbing gold/gold sulfide nanoparticles induce cell death in esophageal adenocarcinoma
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s37140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Martin, Li, Gobin, Dryden, Kang, Xiao, Li, Zhang

Abstract

Gold nanoparticles and near infrared-absorbing light are each innocuous to tissue but when combined can destroy malignant tissue while leaving healthy tissue unharmed. This study investigated the feasibility of photothermal ablation therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma using chitosan-coated gold/gold sulfide (CS-GGS) nanoparticles. A rat esophagoduodenal anastomosis model was used for the in vivo ablation study, and three human esophageal cell lines were used to study the response of cancer cells and benign cells to near infrared light after treatment with CS-GGS. The results indicate that both cancerous tissue and cancer cells took up more gold nanoparticles and were completely ablated after exposure to near infrared light. The benign tissue and noncancerous cells showed less uptake of these nanoparticles, and remained viable after exposure to near infrared light. CS-GGS nanoparticles could provide an optimal endoluminal therapeutic option for near infrared light ablation of esophageal cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 23%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 7 18%
Engineering 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Materials Science 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 4 10%

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 20 June 2013.
All research outputs
#14,171,441
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,654
of 3,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,519
of 194,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#29
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 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 3,795 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 194,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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 51% of its contemporaries.