ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2017
A Feasibility Study of Nonlinear Spectroscopic Measurement of Magnetic Nanoparticles Targeted to Cancer Cells.
Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic nanoparticles for cancer theranostics.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2026Review
- Fundamentals and Applications of Dual-Frequency Magnetic Particle Spectroscopy: Review for Biomedicine and Materials Characterization.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Effects of Salt Concentration on a Magnetic Nanoparticle-Based Aggregation Assay with a Tunable Dynamic Range.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparative Modeling of Frequency Mixing Measurements of Magnetic Nanoparticles Using Micromagnetic Simulations and Langevin Theory.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Nanoimprinted multifunctional nanoprobes for a homogeneous immunoassay in a top-down fabrication approach.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Nanomagnetic Actuation of Hybrid Stents for Hyperthermia Treatment of Hollow Organ Tumors.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMagnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) are an emerging platform for targeted diagnostics in cancer. An important component needed for translation of MNPs is the detection and quantification of targeted MNPs bound to tumor cells.
methodThis study explores the feasibility of a multifrequency nonlinear magnetic spectroscopic method that uses excitation and pickup coils and is capable of discriminating between quantities of bound and unbound MNPs in 0.5 ml samples of KB and Igrov human cancer cell lines. The method is tested over a range of five concentrations of MNPs from 0 to 80 μg/ml and five concentrations of cells from 50 to 400 000 count per ml.
resultsA linear model applied to the magnetic spectroscopy data was able to simultaneously measure bound and unbound MNPs with agreement between the model-fit and lab assay measurements (p < 0.001). The detectable iron of the presented method to bound and unbound MNPs was < 2 μg in a 0.5 ml sample. The linear model parameters used to determine the quantities of bound and unbound nanoparticles in KB cells were also used to measure the bound and unbound MNP in the Igrov cell line and vice versa.
conclusionNonlinear spectroscopic measurement of MNPs may be a useful method for studying targeted MNPs in oncology. SIGNIFICANCE: Determining the quantity of bound and unbound MNP in an unknown sample using a linear model represents an exciting opportunity to translate multifrequency nonlinear spectroscopy methods to in vivo applications where MNPs could be targeted to cancer cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.