ReviewFrontiers in immunology2020
The Critical Choice of Animal Models in Nanomedicine Safety Assessment: A Lesson Learned From Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biosynthetic blood surrogates: Current status and future opportunities.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2025Review
- Biocompatibility of Water-Dispersible Pristine Graphene and Graphene Oxide Using a Close-to-Human Animal Model: A Pilot Study on Swine.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Nanotherapeutics in Kidney Disease: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025Review
- Therapeutic delivery of oxygen using artificial oxygen carriers demonstrates the possibility of treating a wide range of diseases.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Hemoglobin in Submicron Particles (HbMPs) Is Stabilized Against Oxidation.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Nanomedicines against Chagas disease: a critical review.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the Acute Anaphylactoid Reactogenicity of Nanoparticle-Containing Medicines and Vaccines Using the Porcine CARPA Model.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Targeting cancer with mRNA-lipid nanoparticles: key considerations and future prospects.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Review
- To PEGylate or not to PEGylate: Immunological properties of nanomedicine's most popular component, polyethylene glycol and its alternatives.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous injection of nanopharmaceuticals can induce severe hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) resulting in anaphylactoid shock in a small percentage of patients, a phenomenon explicitly reproducible in pigs. However, there is a debate in the literature on whether the pig model of HSRs can be used as a safety test for the prediction of severe adverse reactions in humans. Given the importance of using appropriate animal models for toxicity/safety testing, the choice of the right species and model is a critical decision. In order to facilitate the decision process and to expand the relevant information regarding the pig or no pig dilemma, this review examines an ill-fated clinical development program conducted by Baxter Corporation in the United States 24 years ago, when HemeAssist, an αα (diaspirin) crosslinked hemoglobin-based O
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.