ReviewBiosensors2025
Nanoparticle Detection in Biology and Medicine: A Review.
Review in Biosensors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Combining Fluorescence and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Drug Discovery-A Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesNanoparticles have emerged as indispensable tools in modern biomedicine, enabling precise diagnostics, targeted therapy, and controlled drug delivery. Despite their rapid progress, the translation of nanoparticle-based systems critically depends on the ability to detect, quantify, and track them across complex biological environments. Over the past two decades, a wide spectrum of detection modalities has been developed, encompassing optical, magnetic, acoustic, nuclear, cytometric, and mass spectrometric principles. Yet, no comprehensive framework has been established to compare these methods in terms of sensitivity, spatial resolution, and clinical applicability.
methodsHere we show a systematic analysis of all broadly applicable nanoparticle detection strategies, outlining their mechanisms, advantages, and drawbacks, and providing illustrative examples of practical applications.
resultsThis comparison reveals that each modality occupies a distinct niche: optical methods offer high sensitivity but limited penetration depth; magnetic and acoustic modalities enable repeated non-invasive tracking; nuclear imaging ensures quantitative, whole-body visualization; and invasive biochemical or histological assays achieve ultimate detection limits at the cost of tissue integrity. These findings redefine how each technique contributes to nanoparticle biodistribution and mechanistic studies, clarifying which are best suited for translational and clinical use.
conclusionsPlaced in a broader context, this review bridges fundamental nanotechnology with biomedical applications, outlining a unified methodological framework that will guide the rational design, validation, and clinical implementation of nanoparticle-based therapeutics and diagnostics. By synthesizing the field into a single comparative framework, it also provides an accessible entry point for newcomers in nanotechnology and related biomedical sciences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.