ReviewArtificial cells, nanomedicine, and biotechnology2018
Comparison of conventional and advanced in vitro models in the toxicity testing of nanoparticles.
Review in Artificial cells, nanomedicine, and biotechnology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 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
60 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design and development of a high-throughput multipattern aerosol deposition device for respiratory toxicity and health-risk assessment (MARTHA).Journal of aerosol science · 2026Article
- Nanotoxicology: Emerging Challenges and Future Solutions for Safe Nanomaterial Applications.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comprehensive scientific insights on plant inspired nano therapeutics as the missing piece of the breast cancer puzzle.Discover nano · 2026Review
- Application of 3D Cell Culture Techniques in Nanotoxicology: How Far Are We?Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Analytical challenges in the assessment of intestinal fate, uptake and crossing of food-relevant nanomaterials.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Review
- Hype vs. Health: How Approved Nanomedicines Have Met (or Missed) Early Predictions.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Comprehensive Evaluation of the Genotoxic Potential of Food Additive Titanium Dioxide in Human Intestinal Cell Systems.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Menadione as Antibiotic Adjuvant AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- New Insights in Microplastic Cellular Uptake Through a Cell-Based Organotypic Rainbow-Trout (Cells · 2025Article
- "intelligent Read Across (iRA)"- A tool for read-across-based toxicity prediction of nanoparticles.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Advancing Nanomaterial Toxicology Screening Through Efficient and Cost-Effective Quantitative Proteomics.Small methods · 2024Article
- Safety Landscape of Therapeutic Nanozymes and Future Research Directions.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- In vivo safety evaluation method for nanomaterials for cancer therapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Review
- Bifunctional mesoporous glasses for bone tissue engineering: Biological effects of doping with cerium and polyphenols in 2D and 3D in vitro models.Biomaterials and biosystems · 2024Article
- The Influence of Tacrolimus on Cellular Morphology, Cellular Viability, Osteogenic Differentiation, and mRNA Expression within Stem Cell Spheroids.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploiting Nanomedicine for Cancer Polychemotherapy: Recent Advances and Clinical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Nanoparticles: Taking a Unique Position in Medicine.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Cell Cultures at the Air-Liquid Interface and Their Application in Cancer Research.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Humans are exposed to a wide variety of nanoparticles (NPs) present in the environment, in consumer, health and medical products, and in food. Conventional cytotoxicity testing compared to animal testing is less expensive, faster and avoids ethical problems at the expense of a lower predictive value. New cellular models and exposure conditions have been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional cell culture and obtain more predictive data. The use of three-dimensional culture, co-culture and inclusion of mechanical stimulation can provide physiologically more relevant culture conditions. These systems are particularly relevant for oral, respiratory and intravenous exposure to NPs and it may be assumed that physiologically relevant application of the NPs can improve the predictive value of in vitro testing. Various groups have used advanced culture and exposure systems, but few direct comparisons between data from conventional cultures and from advanced systems exist. In silico models may present another option to predict human health risk by NPs without using animal studies. In the absence of validation, the question whether these alternative models provide more predictive data than conventional testing remains elusive.
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.