Cited by 5,218Nanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryNanoplatforms for cancer theranosticsRNA Interference and Gene Delivery

Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumours

Open access
Wilhelm, Stefan, Tavares, Anthony J., Dai, Qin, Ohta, Seiichi, Audet, Julie, Dvorak, Harold F., Chan, Warren C. W.·2016·Nature Reviews Materials

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/natrevmats.2016.14

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wilhelm et al. used a non-standard metric for tumor delivery defined as percent injected dose in tumor equal to (AUCtumor/tend) times tumor mass.

    “However, they used a non-standard metric for tumor delivery defined as percent injected dose (%ID) in tumor = (AUCtumor/tend)*tumor mass.”

    From Polymeric micelles for the delivery of poorly soluble drugs: From nanoformulation to clinical approval. (2020) · cites this paper as [241]

    The Figure 1 caption (Perspective) defines delivery efficiency in % ID as tumour AUC divided by the study end-point time and multiplied by average tumour mass, matching the stated formula. The paper does not characterize that metric as non-standard; the Delivery efficiency and consequences section describes the underlying AUC method as commonly used in pharmacokinetic studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chan W.C.W and coworkers performed a study analyzing the nanomedicine delivery literature from 2005 to 2015 and exhibited that only 0.7% of NPs administered systemically reach tumors.

    “Chan W.C.W and coworkers performed a study analyzing the nanomedicine delivery literature from the year 2005 to 2015 and exhibited that only 0.7% NPs that were administered systemically reach tumors [160].”

    From Approaches to Improve EPR-Based Drug Delivery for Cancer Therapy and Diagnosis (2023) · cites this paper as [160]

    The figure caption in the Perspective identifies a survey of studies published between 2005 and 2015. “Delivery efficiency and consequences” reports that a median of 0.7% of the injected dose reached solid tumours, based on 232 data sets, and describes the finding in mouse models. The claim omits the median and mouse-model qualifiers, making the percentage sound universal. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent reports have revealed only a modest increase in tumor targeting when active targeting is applied.

    “recent reports have revealed only a modest increase in tumor targeting when this approach is applied”
  • The addition of targeting ligands increases the clearance of nanoparticles by the MPS.

    “the addition of targeting ligands increased the clearance of nanoparticles by MPS”

    From Cloaking nanoparticles with protein corona shield for targeted drug delivery. (2018) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Tumour targeting mechanism section says that active targeting adds ligands to nanoparticles, and Organs competing with tumours says the MPS clears circulating nanoparticles. Neither section links the addition of targeting ligands to increased MPS clearance. Searches for targeting ligands, macrophage uptake, and clearance found no passage making that comparison; the Macrophage uptake mechanisms section instead discusses size, charge, and PEG coatings. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A cancer-nanomedicine repository spearheaded by the University of Toronto enables researchers to share their own experimental data, and has allowed for the determination of the delivery efficiency of specific nanomaterials into tumours.

    “A cancer-nanomedicine repository (http://inbs.med.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/Repository.cgi) spearheaded by the University of Toronto enables researchers to share their own experimental data, and has allowed for the determination of the delivery efficiency of specific nanomaterials into tumours46.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 125 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [44]44. Aird, W. 1457-1470 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilhelm, S., Tavares, A. J., Dai, Q., Ohta, S., Audet, J., Dvorak, H. F., & Chan, W. C. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Chan, Warren C. W.
Venue
Nature Reviews Materials
Published
2016-04-26
Volume
1
Issue
5
ISSN
2058-8437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2344644350
Cited by
5,218
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 629 · 2025: 481 · 2024: 495 · 2023: 486 · 2022: 568 · 2021: 616 · 2020: 642 · 2019: 525 · 2018: 423 · 2017: 272 · 2016: 79
FWCI
23.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Materials (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Prostate Cancer Canada
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (26820356)
  • National Institutes of Health (CA92644)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (26820356)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Nanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Keywords
tumor targeting, nanomedicine, tumor stroma, enhanced permeability and retention effect, tumor models, cancer types, reticuloendothelial system, renal clearance, clinical translation of nanomedicine, tumor accumulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review