| Title |
Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: a consensus statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Toxicology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00204-016-1866-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roland Solecki, Andreas Kortenkamp, Åke Bergman, Ibrahim Chahoud, Gisela H. Degen, Daniel Dietrich, Helmut Greim, Helen Håkansson, Ulla Hass, Trine Husoy, Miriam Jacobs, Susan Jobling, Alberto Mantovani, Philip Marx-Stoelting, Aldert Piersma, Vera Ritz, Remy Slama, Ralf Stahlmann, Martin van den Berg, R. Thomas Zoeller, Alan R. Boobis |
| Abstract |
Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11-12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose-response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 5 | 50% |
| Germany | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 163 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Researcher | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 42 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 22 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 20 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 50 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 05 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,194,966
of 25,663,438 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Toxicology
#64
of 2,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,555
of 327,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Toxicology
#3
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,663,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 327,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.