ReviewTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Photoresponsive Inorganic Nanomaterials in Oncology.
Review in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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.
- Conjugation of hydrophobic drugs to motile pRNA 4WJ nanoparticles for spontaneous tumor targeting and undetectable toxicity.Nature protocols · 2026Review
- PVAm-Grafted N, S-Co-Doped Carbon Dots: A Robust Fluorescent Probe for Selective Detection of Ferric Ions.Journal of fluorescence · 2026Article
- Nanoparticle Drug Delivery Systems: The Future Direction for the Treatment of Tumors.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Article
- From 2D to 3D In Vitro World: Sonodynamically-Induced Prooxidant Proapoptotic Effects of CCancers · 2024Article
- Biomimetic Ghost Nanomedicine-Based Optotheranostics for Cancer.Nano letters · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis and treatment of cancer are continuously evolving in search of more efficient, safe, and personalized approaches. Therapies based on nanoparticles or physical stimuli-responsive substances have shown great potential to overcome the inherent shortcomings of conventional cancer therapies. In fact, nanoparticles may increase the half-life of chemotherapeutic agents or promote the targeting in cancer tissues while physical stimuli-responsive substances are more effective and safer with respect to traditional chemotherapeutic agents because of the possibility to be switched on only when needed. These 2 approaches can be combined by exploiting the ability of some inorganic nanomaterials to be activated by light, ultrasounds, magnetic fields, or ionizing radiations. Albeit the development of stimuli-responsive materials is still at the early stages, research in this field is rapidly growing since they have important advantages with respect to organic nanoparticles or molecular substances, like higher stability, and higher efficiency in converting the stimulus in heat or, in some cases, reactive oxygen species. On the other hand, the translation process is slowed down by issues related to safety and quality of the formulations. This literature review summarizes the current advancements in this research field, analysing the most promising materials and applications.
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.