ArticleNano today2026
The landscape of nanomedical clinical trials.
Article in Nano today, 2026. 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.
- Exploring the impact of nutrition and autophagy on infectious diseases to inform the development of homeostatic-nanomedicines for HIV-TB coinfections.Discover nano · 2026Review
- Nanoparticle Platforms in Cancer Immunotherapy: A Critical Comparative Review of PLGA, Mesoporous Silica, Magnetic Nanoparticles, and Covalent Organic Frameworks.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Liposomal drug delivery for lung cancer therapy: progress, challenges, and future perspectives.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Nanomedicine Meets Immunotherapy: Advancing Adoptive Cell Therapy with Nanoparticles in the Treatment of Cancer with Sustainability Perspectives.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Antioxidant Polymeric and Non-Polymeric Nanoformulations for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Remodeling the tumor immune microenvironment: mechanisms of crosstalk between regulated cell death macrophages.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Nanotechnology has transformed healthcare, leading to the clinical adoption of numerous nanomedical products. To evaluate their clinical translation, we analyzed all trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov using a novel nanomedicine lexicon developed through expert curation and generative AI. This approach identified 4114 nanomedical clinical trials (out of more than 500,000) forming the Nanomedical Clinical Trials (NanoCT) dataset. Our analysis reveals a 38 % rise in nanomedical trials in recent years. While oncology remains dominant (30 %), emerging applications-particularly in infectious diseases, driven by the rise of mRNA vaccines-demonstrate the field's expanding therapeutic scope. This diversification is further evidenced by the growing use of micelles, polymeric, and metallic nanoparticles, marking a shift from the dominance of liposomal formulations. Despite significant advancements, nanomedical trials account for only 0.8 % of all registered clinical trials, highlighting key translational challenges such as regulatory complexities, high production costs, and clinical design limitations. Addressing these barriers requires the establishment of a universally accepted nanomedical lexicon to enhance data harmonization, streamline regulatory pathways, and improve interdisciplinary communication. This comprehensive analysis provides critical insights into the trajectory of nanohealth, identifies obstacles to clinical translation, and outlines strategies to maximize its future impact in medicine.
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.