↓ Skip to main content

Validation of Alternative Methods for Toxicity Testing

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Validation of Alternative Methods for Toxicity Testing'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Introduction.
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Validation in Support of Internationally Harmonised OECD Test Guidelines for Assessing the Safety of Chemicals.
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Regulatory Acceptance of Alternative Methods in the Development and Approval of Pharmaceuticals.
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Validation of Alternative In Vitro Methods to Animal Testing: Concepts, Challenges, Processes and Tools.
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Practical Aspects of Designing and Conducting Validation Studies Involving Multi-study Trials.
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Validation of Computational Methods.
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Implementation of New Test Methods into Practical Testing.
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Pathway Based Toxicology and Fit-for-Purpose Assays.
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Evidence-Based Toxicology.
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Validation of Transcriptomics-Based In Vitro Methods.
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Ensuring the Quality of Stem Cell-Derived In Vitro Models for Toxicity Testing.
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Validation of Bioreactor and Human-on-a-Chip Devices for Chemical Safety Assessment.
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment.
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 International Harmonization and Cooperation in the Validation of Alternative Methods.
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Evolving the Principles and Practice of Validation for New Alternative Approaches to Toxicity Testing.
Attention for Chapter 9: Evidence-Based Toxicology.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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.
Chapter title
Evidence-Based Toxicology.
Chapter number 9
Book title
Validation of Alternative Methods for Toxicity Testing
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33826-2_9
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-933824-8, 978-3-31-933826-2
Authors

Sebastian Hoffmann, Thomas Hartung, Martin Stephens, Hoffmann, Sebastian, Hartung, Thomas, Stephens, Martin

Editors

Chantra Eskes, Maurice Whelan

Abstract

Evidence-based toxicology (EBT) was introduced independently by two groups in 2005, in the context of toxicological risk assessment and causation as well as based on parallels between the evaluation of test methods in toxicology and evidence-based assessment of diagnostics tests in medicine. The role model of evidence-based medicine (EBM) motivated both proposals and guided the evolution of EBT, whereas especially systematic reviews and evidence quality assessment attract considerable attention in toxicology.Regarding test assessment, in the search of solutions for various problems related to validation, such as the imperfectness of the reference standard or the challenge to comprehensively evaluate tests, the field of Diagnostic Test Assessment (DTA) was identified as a potential resource. DTA being an EBM discipline, test method assessment/validation therefore became one of the main drivers spurring the development of EBT.In the context of pathway-based toxicology, EBT approaches, given their objectivity, transparency and consistency, have been proposed to be used for carrying out a (retrospective) mechanistic validation.In summary, implementation of more evidence-based approaches may provide the tools necessary to adapt the assessment/validation of toxicological test methods and testing strategies to face the challenges of toxicology in the twenty first century.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Professor 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 10%
Psychology 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
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 10 January 2024.
All research outputs
#17,109,577
of 25,137,221 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,701
of 5,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,486
of 330,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#60
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,137,221 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 330,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.