↓ Skip to main content

New Technologies for Toxicity Testing

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 7: In silico methods for toxicity prediction.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
In silico methods for toxicity prediction.
Chapter number 7
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_7
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4614-3054-4, 978-1-4614-3055-1
Authors

Combes RD, Robert D. Combes

Abstract

The principles and uses of (Q)SAR models and expert systems for predicting toxicity and the biotransformation of foreign chemicals (xenobiotics) are described and illustrated for some key toxicity endpoints, with examples from the published literature. The advantages and disadvantages of the methods and issues concerned with their validation, acceptance and use by regulatory bodies are also discussed. In addition, consideration is given to the potential application of these techniques in regulatory toxicity testing, both individually and as part of a chemically-based read-across approach, particularly for the risk assessment of chemicals within intelligent, integrated decision-tree testing schemes. It is concluded that, while there has been great progress in recent years in the development and application of in silico approaches, there is still much that has to be achieved to enable them to fulfill their potential for regulatory toxicity testing. In particular, there is a need for the wider availability of appropriate biological data and international agreement on how the systems should be validated. In addition, it is important that correlations between activity and physicochemical properties are based on a mechanistic basis to maximize the predictivity of models for novel chemicals.

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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bulgaria 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 6 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 26%
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 08 April 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,445
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,275
of 4,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,100
of 160,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 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.