↓ Skip to main content

In Silico Toxicology – Non-Testing Methods

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2011
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
268 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
In Silico Toxicology – Non-Testing Methods
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2011.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannu Raunio

Abstract

In silico toxicology in its broadest sense means "anything that we can do with a computer in toxicology." Many different types of in silico methods have been developed to characterize and predict toxic outcomes in humans and environment. The term non-testing methods denote grouping approaches, structure-activity relationship, and expert systems. These methods are already used for regulatory purposes and it is anticipated that their role will be much more prominent in the near future. This Perspective will delineate the basic principles of non-testing methods and evaluate their role in current and future risk assessment of chemical compounds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 268 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 255 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 15%
Student > Master 31 12%
Researcher 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 45 17%
Unknown 59 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 38 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 37 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 6%
Other 50 19%
Unknown 76 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,099,971
of 23,666,309 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#1,799
of 17,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,943
of 184,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#7
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,666,309 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 184,457 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.