↓ Skip to main content

In silico prediction of drug toxicity

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, February 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
In silico prediction of drug toxicity
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, February 2003
DOI 10.1023/a:1025361621494
Pubmed ID
Authors

John C. Dearden

Abstract

It is essential, in order to minimise expensive drug failures due to toxicity being found in late development or even in clinical trials, to determine potential toxicity problems as early as possible. In view of the large libraries of compounds now being handled by combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput screening, identification of putative toxicity is advisable even before synthesis. Thus the use of predictive toxicology is called for. A number of in silico approaches to toxicity prediction are discussed. Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs), relating mostly to specific chemical classes, have long been used for this purpose, and exist for a wide range of toxicity endpoints. However, QSARs also exist for the prediction of toxicity of very diverse libraries, although often such QSARs are of the classification type; that is, they predict simply whether or not a compound is toxic, and do not give an indication of the level of toxicity. Examples are given of all of these. A number of expert systems are available for toxicity prediction, most of them covering a range of toxicity endpoints. Those discussed include TOPKAT, CASE, DEREK, HazardExpert, OncoLogic and COMPACT. Comparative tests of the ability of these systems to predict carcinogenicity show that improvement is still needed. The consensus approach is recommended, whereby the results from several prediction systems are pooled.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 2 1%
France 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 159 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 18%
Student > Master 29 17%
Researcher 22 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 7%
Other 11 7%
Other 37 22%
Unknown 27 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 41 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 9%
Computer Science 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 7%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 34 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 November 2021.
All research outputs
#5,471,255
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#249
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,638
of 141,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 141,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them