ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2026
Enhancing the Safety of Nanoparticles in Medicine: Highlights of Progress and Critical Objectives.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanoparticles have transformed drug delivery, imaging, vaccination, and precision therapeutics, but their clinical translation remains constrained by safety profiles that are inseparable from material design, biological identity, host factors, and manufacturing. This review critically evaluates recent progress, persistent limitations, and priority objectives for safer nanomedicine. Unlike reviews organized primarily by material class or isolated toxicology endpoints, we integrate physicochemical determinants, protein corona formation, immune recognition, organ disposition, preclinical models, chemistry-manufacturing-controls (CMC), regulatory expectations, disease context, and patient heterogeneity into a translational safety-by-design framework. We distinguish clinically established risk-mitigation strategies from emerging approaches and examine why apparently favorable preclinical performance may fail to predict human safety. Particular attention is given to complement activation, repeat-dose immunogenicity, long-term retention, blood-brain barrier delivery, oncology and inflammatory disease, assay interference, quantitative biodistribution, and scale-up. Artificial intelligence, physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, multi-omics, organ-on-chip systems, imaging, and digital-twin concepts are evaluated as emerging tools for predictive safety, while their present validation limitations are emphasized. Overall, the evidence supports early integration of efficacy, mechanistic toxicology, CMC, and patient-specific risk rather than downstream safety testing alone. Harmonized characterization, clinically relevant models, long-term fate studies, and lifecycle surveillance remain central priorities for the next generation of nanomedicines.
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.