↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Intravenous magnetic nanoparticle cancer hyperthermia

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
274 Mendeley
Title
Intravenous magnetic nanoparticle cancer hyperthermia
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s43770
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Hainfeld, Huang

Abstract

Magnetic nanoparticles heated by an alternating magnetic field could be used to treat cancers, either alone or in combination with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. However, direct intratumoral injections suffer from tumor incongruence and invasiveness, typically leaving undertreated regions, which lead to cancer regrowth. Intravenous injection more faithfully loads tumors, but, so far, it has been difficult achieving the necessary concentration in tumors before systemic toxicity occurs. Here, we describe use of a magnetic nanoparticle that, with a well-tolerated intravenous dose, achieved a tumor concentration of 1.9 mg Fe/g tumor in a subcutaneous squamous cell carcinoma mouse model, with a tumor to non-tumor ratio > 16. With an applied field of 38 kA/m at 980 kHz, tumors could be heated to 60°C in 2 minutes, durably ablating them with millimeter (mm) precision, leaving surrounding tissue intact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 274 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
India 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 255 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 80 29%
Student > Master 46 17%
Researcher 38 14%
Student > Bachelor 33 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 4%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 22 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 41 15%
Engineering 40 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 14%
Physics and Astronomy 35 13%
Materials Science 22 8%
Other 64 23%
Unknown 35 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,348,228
of 19,602,522 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#101
of 3,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,333
of 170,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,602,522 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,419 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 170,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.