↓ Skip to main content

New Technologies for Toxicity Testing

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 13: The use of integrated and intelligent testing strategies in the prediction of toxic hazard and in risk assessment.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
The use of integrated and intelligent testing strategies in the prediction of toxic hazard and in risk assessment.
Chapter number 13
Book title
New Technologies for Toxicity Testing
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3055-1_13
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4614-3054-4, 978-1-4614-3055-1
Authors

Balls M, Combes RD, Bhogal N, Michael Balls, Robert D. Combes, Nirmala Bhogal

Abstract

There is increasing concern that insurmountable differences between humans and laboratory animals limit the relevance and reliability for hazard identification and risk assessment purposes of animal data produced by traditional toxicity test procedures. A way forward is offered by the emerging new technologies, which can be directly applied to human material or even to human beings themselves. This promises to revolutionise the evaluation of the safety of chemicals and chemical products of various kinds and, in particular, pharmaceuticals. The available and developing technologies are summarised and it is emphasised that they will need to be used selectively, in integrated and intelligent testing strategies, which, in addition to being scientifically sound, must be manageable and affordable. Examples are given of proposed testing strategies for general chemicals, cosmetic ingredients, candidate pharmaceuticals, inhaled substances, nanoparticles and neurotoxicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bulgaria 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 25%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,275
of 4,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,101
of 160,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 160,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.