↓ Skip to main content

Nanotechnology: a promising method for oral cancer detection and diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nanobiotechnology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 Mendeley
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.
Title
Nanotechnology: a promising method for oral cancer detection and diagnosis
Published in
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12951-018-0378-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiao-Jie Chen, Xue-Qiong Zhang, Qi Liu, Jing Zhang, Gang Zhou

Abstract

Oral cancer is a common and aggressive cancer with high morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rate globally. Early detection is of utmost importance for cancer prevention and disease management. Currently, tissue biopsy remains the gold standard for oral cancer diagnosis, but it is invasive, which may cause patient discomfort. The application of traditional noninvasive methods-such as vital staining, exfoliative cytology, and molecular imaging-is limited by insufficient sensitivity and specificity. Thus, there is an urgent need for exploring noninvasive, highly sensitive, and specific diagnostic techniques. Nano detection systems are known as new emerging noninvasive strategies that bring the detection sensitivity of biomarkers to nano-scale. Moreover, compared to current imaging contrast agents, nanoparticles are more biocompatible, easier to synthesize, and able to target specific surface molecules. Nanoparticles generate localized surface plasmon resonances at near-infrared wavelengths, providing higher image contrast and resolution. Therefore, using nano-based techniques can help clinicians to detect and better monitor diseases during different phases of oral malignancy. Here, we review the progress of nanotechnology-based methods in oral cancer detection and diagnosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 220 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 14%
Student > Master 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Researcher 14 6%
Other 9 4%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 69 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 8%
Engineering 14 6%
Chemistry 12 5%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 78 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,522,137
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#1,255
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,861
of 328,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 328,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.