You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Biological mechanisms of gold nanoparticle radiosensitization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Nanotechnology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12645-017-0026-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soraia Rosa, Chris Connolly, Giuseppe Schettino, Karl T. Butterworth, Kevin M. Prise |
| Abstract |
There has been growing interest in the use of nanomaterials for a range of biomedical applications over the last number of years. In particular, gold nanoparticles (GNPs) possess a number of unique properties that make them ideal candidates as radiosensitizers on the basis of their strong photoelectric absorption coefficient and ease of synthesis. However, despite promising preclinical evidence in vitro supported by a limited amount of in vivo experiments, along with advances in mechanistic understanding, GNPs have not yet translated into the clinic. This may be due to disparity between predicted levels of radiosensitization based on physical action, observed biological response and an incomplete mechanistic understanding, alongside current experimental limitations. This paper provides a review of the current state of the field, highlighting the potential underlying biological mechanisms in GNP radiosensitization and examining the barriers to clinical translation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 251 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 41 | 16% |
| Researcher | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 32 | 13% |
| Unknown | 42 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 45 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 23 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 61 | 24% |
| Unknown | 53 | 21% |
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 27 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,053,217
of 25,978,998 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Nanotechnology
#25
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,630
of 428,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Nanotechnology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,978,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 428,276 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 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.