↓ Skip to main content

Toxicodynamic modeling of zebrafish larvae to metals using stochastic death and individual tolerance models: comparisons of model assumptions, parameter sensitivity and predictive performance

Overview of attention for article published in Ecotoxicology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Toxicodynamic modeling of zebrafish larvae to metals using stochastic death and individual tolerance models: comparisons of model assumptions, parameter sensitivity and predictive performance
Published in
Ecotoxicology, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10646-017-1763-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yongfei Gao, Jianfeng Feng, Lin Zhu

Abstract

Process-based toxicodynamic (TD) models are playing an increasing role in predicting chemical toxicity to aquatic organism. Stochastic death (SD) and individual tolerance distribution (IT) are two often used assumptions in TD models which could lead to different consequences for risk assessment of chemicals. Here, using the toxicity data of single (Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb) and their binary metal mixtures on survival of zebrafish larvae, we assessed the parameter sensitivity and evaluated the predictive performance of SD and IT models. The sensitivity analysis indicated the parameters related to toxicodynamics such as k k and threshold, had a great influence on the SD model's output and α had a great influence on the IT model's output. The predicted survival probability was highly sensitive to the assumptions of SD or IT models, and the SD model explained toxicity of single metal and binary metal mixtures better than IT model. Our results suggested that SD model is more suitable in assessing the metal toxicity to zebrafish larvae. Moreover, different combinations of laboratory metal-specific and species-specific experiments with SD and IT models need further study for better understanding and predicting toxic effects for different metals and organisms.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 43%
Professor 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 4 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,400,885
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#976
of 1,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,534
of 420,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,478 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 420,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.