| Title |
Current applications and future prospects of nanomaterials in tumor therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s127349 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yu Huang, Chao-Qiang Fan, Hui Dong, Su-Min Wang, Xiao-Chao Yang, Shi-Ming Yang |
| Abstract |
Tumors are one of the most serious human diseases and cause numerous global deaths per year. In spite of many strategies applied in tumor therapy, such as radiation therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, and a combination of these treatments, tumors are still the foremost killer worldwide among human diseases, due to their specific limitations, such as multidrug resistance and side effects. Therefore, it is urgent and necessary to develop new strategies for tumor therapy. Recently, the fast development of nanoscience has paved the way for designing new strategies to treat tumors. Nanomaterials have shown great potential in tumor therapy, due to their unique properties, including passive targeting, hyperthermia effects, and tumor-specific inhibition. This review summarizes the recent progress using the innate antitumor properties of metallic and nonmetallic nanomaterials to treat tumors, and related challenges and prospects are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 12 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 32 | 40% |
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 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,971
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,052
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#63
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.