| Title |
A brief perspective on the diverging theories of lymphatic targeting with colloids
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s105852 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karthik Siram, Gregory Marslin, Chellan Vijaya Raghavan, Krishnamoorthy Balakumar, Habibur Rahman, Gregory Franklin |
| Abstract |
For targeted delivery of colloids to the lymphatic system, the colloids should efficiently reach and remain in the lymphatics for a considerable period of time. As per the current knowledge, diffusion and phagocytosis are the two mechanisms through which colloids reach the lymphatic system. Several parameters including particle size and charge have been shown to affect the direct uptake of colloids by the lymphatic system. Although many researchers attached ligands on the surface of colloids to promote phagocytosis-mediated lymphatic delivery, another school of thought suggests avoidance of phagocytosis by use of carriers like polyethylene glycol (PEG)ylated colloids to impart stealth attributes and evade phagocytosis. In this perspective, we weigh up the paradoxical theories and approaches available in the literature to draw conclusions on the conditions favorable for achieving efficient lymphatic targeting of colloids. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 25% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,088
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,254
of 353,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#70
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 353,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.