↓ Skip to main content

Current limitations and recommendations to improve testing for the environmental assessment of endocrine active substances

Overview of attention for article published in Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
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.
Title
Current limitations and recommendations to improve testing for the environmental assessment of endocrine active substances
Published in
Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/ieam.1862
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine K Coady, Ronald C Biever, Nancy D Denslow, Melanie Gross, Patrick D Guiney, Henrik Holbech, Natalie K Karouna‐Renier, Ioanna Katsiadaki, Hank Krueger, Steven L Levine, Gerd Maack, Mike Williams, Jeffrey C Wolf, Gerald T Ankley

Abstract

In this paper existing regulatory frameworks and test systems for assessing potential endocrine-active chemicals are described, and associated challenges discussed, along with proposed approaches to address these challenges. Regulatory frameworks vary somewhat across geographies, but all basically evaluate whether a chemical possesses endocrine activity and whether this activity can result in adverse outcomes either to humans or the environment. Current test systems include in silico, in vitro and in vivo techniques focused on detecting potential endocrine activity, and in vivo tests that collect apical data to detect possible adverse effects. These test systems are currently designed to robustly assess endocrine activity and/or adverse effects in the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone signaling pathways; however, there are some limitations of current test systems for evaluating endocrine hazard and risk. These limitations include a lack of certainty regarding: 1) adequately sensitive species and life-stages, 2) mechanistic endpoints that are diagnostic for endocrine pathways of concern, and 3) the linkage between mechanistic responses and apical, adverse outcomes. Furthermore, some existing test methods are resource intensive in regard to time, cost, and use of animals. However, based on recent experiences, there are opportunities to improve approaches to, and guidance for existing test methods, and reduce uncertainty. For example, in vitro high throughput screening could be used to prioritize chemicals for testing and provide insights as to the most appropriate assay(s) for characterizing hazard and risk. Other recommendations include adding endpoints for elucidating connections between mechanistic effects and adverse outcomes, identifying potentially sensitive taxa for which test methods currently do not exist, and addressing key endocrine pathways of possible concern in addition to those associated with estrogen, androgen and thyroid signaling. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 18 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 13 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 21 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 December 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management
#501
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,809
of 421,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 421,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.