Cancer nanomedicine: Addressing the dark side of the enhanced permeability and retention effect
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The EPR effect describes preferential accumulation of nanoparticles in tumors due to their leaky vascular system and poor lymphatic drainage.
“The enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect describes the preferential accumulation of nanoparticles in tumors due to their leaky vascular system and poor lymphatic drainage [151].”
From Approaches to Improve EPR-Based Drug Delivery for Cancer Therapy and Diagnosis (2023) · cites this paper as [151]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 125
- Authors
- Huynh, E., & Zheng, G.
- Affiliations
- University Health Network (CA)
- Venue
- Nanomedicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-06-22
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1993-1995
- ISSN
- 1743-5889 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-6963
- OpenAlex
- W2147414006
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nanomedicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Nanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Nanotechnology research and applications
- Keywords
- cancer nanomedicine, enhanced permeability and retention effect, nanoparticle drug delivery, tumor microenvironment, nanoparticle clearance
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Neoplasms, Permeability, Drug Delivery Systems, Nanomedicine, Nanoparticles, Tumor Microenvironment
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
