↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A histological evaluation and in vivo assessment of intratumoral near infrared photothermal nanotherapy-induced tumor regression

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 4,123)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
14 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
A histological evaluation and in vivo assessment of intratumoral near infrared photothermal nanotherapy-induced tumor regression
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, November 2014
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s60648
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hadiyah N Green, Stephanie D Crockett, Dmitry V Martyshkin, Karan P Singh, William E Grizzle, Eben L Rosenthal, Sergey B Mirov

Abstract

Nanoparticle (NP)-enabled near infrared (NIR) photothermal therapy has realized limited success in in vivo studies as a potential localized cancer therapy. This is primarily due to a lack of successful methods that can prevent NP uptake by the reticuloendothelial system, especially the liver and kidney, and deliver sufficient quantities of intravenously injected NPs to the tumor site. Histological evaluation of photothermal therapy-induced tumor regression is also neglected in the current literature. This report demonstrates and histologically evaluates the in vivo potential of NIR photothermal therapy by circumventing the challenges of intravenous NP delivery and tumor targeting found in other photothermal therapy studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Chemistry 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 18 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 07 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,119,614
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#37
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,528
of 273,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 273,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 98% of its contemporaries.