↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Central nervous system toxicity of metallic nanoparticles

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
Title
Central nervous system toxicity of metallic nanoparticles
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s78308
Pubmed ID
Authors

Limin Wei, longquan shao, Xiaoli Feng, Aijie Chen, Yanli Zhang, Jianfeng Wang

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 155 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 150 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 25%
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 32 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 12%
Chemistry 14 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 39 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#6,898,179
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#789
of 3,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,324
of 263,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#16
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,816 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 263,437 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.