| Title |
Central nervous system toxicity of metallic nanoparticles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s78308 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaoli Feng, Aijie Chen, Yanli Zhang, Jianfeng Wang, Longquan Shao, Limin Wei |
| Abstract |
Nanomaterials (NMs) are increasingly used for the therapy, diagnosis, and monitoring of disease- or drug-induced mechanisms in the human biological system. In view of their small size, after certain modifications, NMs have the capacity to bypass or cross the blood-brain barrier. Nanotechnology is particularly advantageous in the field of neurology. Examples may include the utilization of nanoparticle (NP)-based drug carriers to readily cross the blood-brain barrier to treat central nervous system (CNS) diseases, nanoscaffolds for axonal regeneration, nanoelectromechanical systems in neurological operations, and NPs in molecular imaging and CNS imaging. However, NPs can also be potentially hazardous to the CNS in terms of nano-neurotoxicity via several possible mechanisms, such as oxidative stress, autophagy, and lysosome dysfunction, and the activation of certain signaling pathways. In this review, we discuss the dual effect of NMs on the CNS and the mechanisms involved. The limitations of the current research are also discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 163 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Researcher | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 13% |
| Unknown | 37 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 15 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 32 | 19% |
| Unknown | 45 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,374,991
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#818
of 4,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,526
of 277,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#18
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 277,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.