ReviewDiscover nano2026
Gold and silver nanoparticles for safe and effective biomedical applications.
Review in Discover nano, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Metallic gold and silver nanoparticles have been extensively studied as nanoscale technologies for targeted gene and drug delivery agents. This narrative review incorporates the latest advances in the therapeutic and diagnostic potential of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) while also critically investigating their toxicity, safety concerns, and clinical translation. The therapeutic applications include antibacterial, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and dermatological applications. This review also provides a critical comparison between AuNPs and AgNPs in terms of their therapeutic potential and toxicological concerns. Epigenetic effects and clinical translation barriers are also compared. More importantly, AuNPs and AgNPs differ significantly in terms of their readiness to be translated clinically. As compared to AgNPs, greater biocompatibility and higher physicochemical stability are exhibited by AuNPs. On the other hand, AgNPs have been known to demonstrate higher cytotoxicity and antimicrobial potential but are at a higher risk of causing systemic toxicity and oxidative degradation. These therapeutic and diagnostic potentials are mainly due to surface plasmonic resonance, oxidative stress-associated cytotoxicity, surface functionalization, photothermal conversion, and nanoparticle-mediated cellular signaling pathway modulation. However, clinical translation of these metallic nanoparticles is still limited owing to toxicological concerns, biodistribution, and epigenetic or multigenerational issues. Therefore, incorporation of these metallic nanoparticles in clinical settings requires addressing systemic toxicity, controlled biodistribution, chronic toxicity, and standardization issues.
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.