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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Data gaps in toxicity testing of chemicals allowed in food in the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive Toxicology, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.reprotox.2013.07.023 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas G. Neltner, Heather M. Alger, Jack E. Leonard, Maricel V. Maffini |
| Abstract |
In the United States, chemical additives cannot be used in food without an affirmative determination that their use is safe by FDA or additive manufacturer. Feeding toxicology studies designed to estimate the amount of a chemical additive that can be eaten safely provide the most relevant information. We analyze how many chemical additives allowed in human food have feeding toxicology studies in three toxicological information sources including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) database. Less than 38% of FDA-regulated additives have a published feeding study. For chemicals directly added to food, 21.6% have feeding studies necessary to estimate a safe level of exposure and 6.7% have reproductive or developmental toxicity data in FDA's database. A program is needed to fill these significant knowledge gaps by using in vitro and in silico methods complemented with targeted in vivo studies to ensure public health is protected. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 48 | 48% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 6% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Comoros | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Cameroon | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 41 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 79 | 78% |
| Scientists | 15 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 17% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 8 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 22% |
| Unknown | 23 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 174. 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 14 April 2023.
All research outputs
#233,709
of 25,539,438 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Toxicology
#19
of 1,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,538
of 209,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Toxicology
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,539,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 209,232 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.