ReviewNature communications2021
Sex as an important factor in nanomedicine.
Review in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Receptor discovery for nanomaterial soft and hard coronas via a biosensor-based Fishing strategy.Nature protocols · 2026Review
- Influence of protein aggregates, extracellular vesicles, and lipoprotein fusion on ionizable lipid nanoparticles protein corona analysis.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Elucidating the Influence of Serum Concentration, Sex, and Particle Size on Iron Oxide Nanoparticle-Lipid Biocorona Formation.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The protein corona at the nano-bio interface: the need for standardized methodology and opportunities for neurodegenerative disease intervention.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Nanotechnology for reproductive healthcare: a comprehensive review.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Advances in the application of nanoparticles for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic cardiomyopathy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Distinct macrophage uptake of engineered and biological particles driven by host age and sex.Science and technology of advanced materials · 2026Article
- The Importance of Sex-Based Comparisons in Preclinical Nanomedicine and Regenerative Chronic Wound Therapies.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Review
- Obesity enhances ovarian cancer chemotherapy efficacy through C1q-mediated tumor targeting and immune activation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Article
- Urine-Stable Aptamer-Conjugated Gold Nanorods for the Early Detection of High-Grade Bladder Cancer Residual Disease.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Comprehensive insights into glioblastoma multiforme: drug delivery challenges and multimodal treatment strategies.Therapeutic delivery · 2025Review
- Innovative Nanomedicine Delivery: Targeting Tumor Microenvironment to Defeat Drug Resistance.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Safety Landscape of Therapeutic Nanozymes and Future Research Directions.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- The role of patient-specific variables in protein corona formation and therapeutic efficacy in nanomedicine.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Review
- Review
- Impact of Nanomedicine in Women's Metastatic Breast Cancer.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2024Review
- Sex Influences the Safety and Therapeutic Efficacy of Cardiac Nanomedicine Technologies.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2024Article
- Gold nanorod-assisted theranostic solution for nonvisible residual disease in bladder cancer.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- The quantification of zebrafish ocular-associated proteins provides hints for sex-biased visual impairments and perception.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Sex-specific nanomedicine- and biomaterials-based therapies of chronic wounds.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanomedicine has demonstrated substantial potential to improve the quality and efficacy of healthcare systems. Although the promise of nanomedicine to transform conventional medicine is evident, significant numbers of therapeutic nanomedicine products have failed in clinical trials. Most studies in nanomedicine have overlooked several important factors, including the significance of sex differences at various physiological levels. This report attempts to highlight the importance of sex in nanomedicine at cellular and molecular level. A more thorough consideration of sex physiology, among other critical variations (e.g., health status of individuals), would enable researchers to design and develop safer and more-efficient sex-specific diagnostic and therapeutic nanomedicine products.
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.