You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Health effects of exposure to nano-TiO2: a meta-analysis of experimental studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Discover Nano, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1556-276x-8-51 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xuhong Chang, Yu Zhang, Meng Tang, Bei Wang |
| Abstract |
The paper is aimed to investigate the toxicity of nano-TiO2 and its potential harmful impact on human health using meta-analysis of in vitro and short-time animal studies. Data were retrieved according to included and excluded criteria from 1994 to 2011. The combined toxic effects of nano-TiO2 were calculated by the different endpoints by cell and animal models. From analysis of the experimental studies, more than 50% showed positive statistical significance except the apoptosis group, and the cytotoxicity was in a dose-dependent but was not clear in size-dependent manner. Nano-TiO2 was detained in several important organs including the liver, spleen, kidney, and brain after entering the blood through different exposure routes, but the coefficient of the target organs was altered slightly from animal models. It is possible that nano-TiO2 can induce cell damage related to exposure size and dose. Further studies will be needed to demonstrate that nanoparticles have toxic effects on human body, especially in epidemiological studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 16% |
| Chemistry | 6 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 27% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2014.
All research outputs
#17,537,980
of 25,711,998 outputs
Outputs from Discover Nano
#549
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,939
of 290,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Discover Nano
#16
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.