↓ Skip to main content

Teratogenicity Testing

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Teratogenicity Testing'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 The ICH S5(R2) Guideline for the Testing of Medicinal Agents
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Nonclinical Reproductive Toxicity Testing Requirements for Drugs, Pesticides, and Industrial Chemicals in India and China
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 The Developmental Toxicity Testing of Biologics
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals and Pesticides
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Teratology Testing Under REACH
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 The Teratology Testing of Food Additives
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Developmental Toxicity Testing of Vaccines
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 The Teratology Testing of Cosmetics
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Teratology Studies in the Rat
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Teratology Studies in the Mouse
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Combined Fertility and Embryotoxicity Study
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Teratology Studies in the Rabbit
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Teratology Studies in the Minipig
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Embryo fetal Development Studies in Nonhuman Primates
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 The Enhanced Pre- and Postnatal Development Study for Monoclonal Antibodies
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Skeletal Examination by Alizarin Staining
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Skeletal Examination by Double Staining for Ossified Bone and Cartilaginous Tissue
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Small Animal Imaging and Examination by Micro-CT
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 Fetal Soft Tissue Examination by Serial Sectioning
  21. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 20 Fetal Soft Tissue Examinations by Microdissection
  22. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 21 Soft Tissue Examination of the Fetal Rat and Rabbit Head by Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  23. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 22 Historical Control Data in Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Studies
  24. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 23 Reporting of Teratology Studies
  25. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 24 Maternal toxicity.
  26. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 25 Innovations in Testing Strategies in Reproductive Toxicology
  27. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 26 Predictive models and computational toxicology.
  28. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 27 The Embryonic Stem Cell Test
  29. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 28 Zebrafish Teratogenicity Testing
  30. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 29 Frog Embryo Teratogenesis Assay on Xenopus and Predictivity Compared with In Vivo Mammalian Studies
  31. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 30 The Rat Whole Embryo Culture Assay Using the Dysmorphology Score System
  32. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 31 Toxicogenomic Approaches in Developmental Toxicology Testing
  33. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 32 Teratogenicity Testing
  34. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 33 Regulatory Assessment of Reproductive Toxicology Data
  35. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 34 Hazard and Risk Assessment of Teratogenic Chemicals Under REACH
  36. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 35 Reproductive toxicity risk assessment for pesticides.
  37. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 36 The thalidomide disaster, lessons from the past.
Attention for Chapter 26: Predictive models and computational toxicology.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Predictive models and computational toxicology.
Chapter number 26
Book title
Teratogenicity Testing
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/978-1-62703-131-8_26
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-62703-130-1, 978-1-62703-131-8
Authors

Thomas Knudsen, Matthew Martin, Kelly Chandler, Nicole Kleinstreuer, Richard Judson, Nisha Sipes, Knudsen T, Martin M, Chandler K, Kleinstreuer N, Judson R, Sipes N, Knudsen, Thomas, Martin, Matthew, Chandler, Kelly, Kleinstreuer, Nicole, Judson, Richard, Sipes, Nisha

Abstract

Understanding the potential health risks posed by environmental chemicals is a significant challenge elevated by the large number of diverse chemicals with generally uncharacterized exposures, mechanisms, and toxicities. The ToxCast computational toxicology research program was launched by EPA in 2007 and is part of the federal Tox21 consortium to develop a cost-effective approach for efficiently prioritizing the toxicity testing of thousands of chemicals and the application of this information to assessing human toxicology. ToxCast addresses this problem through an integrated workflow using high-throughput screening (HTS) of chemical libraries across more than 650 in vitro assays including biochemical assays, human cells and cell lines, and alternative models such as mouse embryonic stem cells and zebrafish embryo development. The initial phase of ToxCast profiled a library of 309 environmental chemicals, mostly pesticidal actives having rich in vivo data from guideline studies that include chronic/cancer bioassays in mice and rats, multigenerational reproductive studies in rats, and prenatal developmental toxicity endpoints in rats and rabbits. The first phase of ToxCast was used to build models that aim to determine how well in vivo animal effects can be predicted solely from the in vitro data. Phase I is now complete and both the in vitro data (ToxCast) and anchoring in vivo database (ToxRefDB) have been made available to the public (http://actor.epa.gov/). As Phase II of ToxCast is now underway, the purpose of this chapter is to review progress to date with ToxCast predictive modeling, using specific examples on developmental and reproductive effects in rats and rabbits with lessons learned during Phase I.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 48 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 7 13%
Computer Science 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 October 2013.
All research outputs
#7,447,868
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,316
of 13,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,249
of 280,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#88
of 340 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,090 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 280,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 340 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.