↓ Skip to main content

Allometric scaling of xenobiotic clearance: Uncertainty versus universality

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Allometric scaling of xenobiotic clearance: Uncertainty versus universality
Published in
The AAPS Journal, July 2015
DOI 10.1208/ps030429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teh-Min Hu, William L. Hayton

Abstract

Statistical analysis and Monte Carlo simulation were used to characterize uncertainty in the allometric exponent (b) of xenobiotic clearance (CL). CL values for 115 xenobiotics were from published studies in which at least 3 species were used for the purpose of interspecies comparison of pharmacokinetics. The b value for each xenobiotic was calculated along with its confidence interval (CI). For 24 xenobiotics (21%), there was no correlation between log CL and log body weight. For the other 91 cases, the mean +/- standard deviation of the b values was 0.74 +/- 0.16; range: 0.29 to 1.2. Most (81%) of these individual b values did not differ from either 0.67 or 0.75 at P = 0.05. When CL values for the subset of 91 substances were normalized to a common body weight coefficient (a), the b value for the 460 adjusted CL values was 0.74; the 99% CI was 0.71 to 0.76, which excluded 0.67. Monte Carlo simulation indicated that the wide range of observed b values could have resulted from random variability in CL values determined in a limited number of species, even though the underlying b value was 0.75. From the normalized CL values, four xenobiotic subgroups were examined: those that were (i) protein, and those that were (ii) eliminated mainly by renal excretion, (iii) by metabolism, or (iv) by renal excretion and metabolism combined. All subgroups except (ii) showed a b value not different from 0.75. The b value for the renal excretion subgroup (21 xenobiotics, 105 CL values) was 0.65, which differed from 0.75 but not from 0.67.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
India 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Professor 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 18%
Mathematics 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 8 12%
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 20 February 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#520
of 1,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,277
of 277,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#16
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 277,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.