↓ Skip to main content

Carbon Nanomaterials Interfacing with Neurons: An In vivo Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
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.
Title
Carbon Nanomaterials Interfacing with Neurons: An In vivo Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00250
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele Baldrighi, Massimo Trusel, Raffaella Tonini, Silvia Giordani

Abstract

Developing new tools that outperform current state of the art technologies for imaging, drug delivery or electrical sensing in neuronal tissues is one of the great challenges in neurosciences. Investigations into the potential use of carbon nanomaterials for such applications started about two decades ago. Since then, numerous in vitro studies have examined interactions between these nanomaterials and neurons, either by evaluating their compatibility, as vectors for drug delivery, or for their potential use in electric activity sensing and manipulation. The results obtained indicate that carbon nanomaterials may be suitable for medical therapies. However, a relatively small number of in vivo studies have been carried out to date. In order to facilitate the transformation of carbon nanomaterial into practical neurobiomedical applications, it is essential to identify and highlight in the existing literature the strengths and weakness that different carbon nanomaterials have displayed when probed in vivo. Unfortunately the current literature is sometimes sparse and confusing. To offer a clearer picture of the in vivo studies on carbon nanomaterials in the central nervous system, we provide a systematic and critical review. Hereby we identify properties and behavior of carbon nanomaterials in vivo inside the neural tissues, and we examine key achievements and potentially problematic toxicological issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 129 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 28%
Student > Master 14 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 12%
Materials Science 16 12%
Chemistry 16 12%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Engineering 7 5%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 38 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 February 2024.
All research outputs
#4,487,601
of 25,888,065 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3,569
of 11,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,129
of 359,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#60
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,888,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 359,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.