Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24673911›Full record

ReviewJournal of food and drug analysis2014

Neurotoxicity of nanoscale materials.

Alokita Karmakar, Qinli Zhang, Yongbin Zhang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of food and drug analysis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. The emerging role of cancer nanotechnology in the panorama of sarcoma.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  11. Toxicological Aspects of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Nanotechnology Scaffolds for Alveolar Bone Regeneration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alokita KarmakarNanotechnology Core Facility, Office of Scientific Coordination, National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA.
Qinli ZhangSchool of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, 56 XinJian South Road, Taiyuan 030001, China.
Yongbin ZhangNanotechnology Core Facility, Office of Scientific Coordination, National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA. Electronic address: yongbin.zhang@fda.hhs.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanotechnology has been applied in consumer products and commercial applications, showing a significant impact on almost all industries and all areas of society. Significant evidence indicates that manufactured nanomaterials and combustion-derived nanomaterials elicit toxicity in humans exposed to these nanomaterials. The interaction of the engineered nanomaterials with the nervous system has received much attention in the nanotoxicology field. In this review, the biological effects of metal, metal oxide, and carbon-based nanomaterials on the nervous system are discussed from both in vitro and in vivo studies. The translocation of the nanoparticles through the blood-brain barrier or nose to brain via the olfactory bulb route, oxidative stress, and inflammatory mechanisms of nanomaterials are also reviewed.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansNanostructuresNervous SystemOxidative StressToxicologyBlood–brain barrierNanomaterialNeurotoxicityOxidative stress

Identifiers

PMID24673911
PMCPMC9359152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.