ReviewPolymers2022
Bioresponsive Polymers for Nanomedicine-Expectations and Reality!
Review in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating the Alzheimer's Treatment Landscape: Unraveling Amyloid-beta Complexities and Pioneering Precision Medicine Approaches.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Development of stimuli responsive polymeric nanomedicines modulating tumor microenvironment for improved cancer therapy.Medical review (2021) · 2023Review
- Nanophotosensitizers Composed of Phenyl Boronic Acid Pinacol Ester-Conjugated Chitosan Oligosaccharide via Thioketal Linker for Reactive Oxygen Species-Sensitive Delivery of Chlorin e6 against Oral Cancer Cells.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioresponsive polymers in nanomedicine have been widely perceived to selectively activate the therapeutic function of nanomedicine at diseased or pathological sites, while sparing their healthy counterparts. This idea can be described as an advanced version of Paul Ehrlich's magic bullet concept. From that perspective, the inherent anomalies or malfunction of the pathological sites are generally targeted to allow the selective activation or sensory function of nanomedicine. Nonetheless, while the primary goals and expectations in developing bioresponsive polymers are to elicit exclusive selectivity of therapeutic action at diseased sites, this remains difficult to achieve in practice. Numerous research efforts have been undertaken, and are ongoing, to tackle this fine-tuning. This review provides a brief introduction to key stimuli with biological relevance commonly featured in the design of bioresponsive polymers, which serves as a platform for critical discussion, and identifies the gap between expectations and current reality.
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.