Evidence mapPaperPMID 41440290Full record

ReviewBiosensors2025

Nanoparticle Detection in Biology and Medicine: A Review.

Olga A Kolesnikova, Dmitry A Shikvin, Arina O Antonova, Anna M Iureva, Elena N Komedchikova, Anastasiia S Obozina, Valeryia S Kachan, Anna V Svetlakova, Ilya D Kukushkin, Victoria O Shipunova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Olga A KolesnikovaMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.
Dmitry A ShikvinMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.
Arina O AntonovaMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.
Anna M IurevaMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-5856-5800
Elena N KomedchikovaMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-5115-3774
Anastasiia S ObozinaMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0009-0000-3718-1093
Valeryia S KachanMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0009-0004-1599-6119
Anna V SvetlakovaMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.
Ilya D KukushkinMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0009-0003-2587-4433
Victoria O ShipunovaMoscow Center for Advanced Studies, Kulakova Str. 20, 123592 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-6361-1042

Funding

MSHE RF 075-15-2025-597
6 · The paper itself

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

Biosensing TechniquesNanoparticlesAnimalsHumansNanotechnologyclinical applicationcomputed tomography (CT)inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)invasive detectionin vivo imagingmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)nanoparticlesnon-invasive detectionphotoacoustic imagingsurface-enhanced Raman scattering

Identifiers

PMID41440290
PMCPMC12731100

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.