↓ Skip to main content

Nano-Lazar: Read across Predictions for Nanoparticle Toxicities with Calculated and Measured Properties

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Nano-Lazar: Read across Predictions for Nanoparticle Toxicities with Calculated and Measured Properties
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00377
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Helma, Micha Rautenberg, Denis Gebele

Abstract

The lazar framework for read across predictions was expanded for the prediction of nanoparticle toxicities, and a new methodology for calculating nanoparticle descriptors from core and coating structures was implemented. Nano-lazar provides a flexible and reproducible framework for downloading data and ontologies from the open eNanoMapper infrastructure, developing and validating nanoparticle read across models, open-source code and a free graphical interface for nanoparticle read-across predictions. In this study we compare different nanoparticle descriptor sets and local regression algorithms. Sixty independent crossvalidation experiments were performed for the Net Cell Association endpoint of the Protein Corona dataset. The best RMSE and r(2) results originated from models with protein corona descriptors and the weighted random forest algorithm, but their 95% prediction interval is significantly less accurate than for models with simpler descriptor sets (measured and calculated nanoparticle properties). The most accurate prediction intervals were obtained with measured nanoparticle properties (no statistical significant difference (p < 0.05) of RMSE and r(2) values compared to protein corona descriptors). Calculated descriptors are interesting for cheap and fast high-throughput screening purposes. RMSE and prediction intervals of random forest models are comparable to protein corona models, but r(2) values are significantly lower.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Researcher 8 24%
Other 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 7 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Computer Science 3 9%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 10 30%
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 17 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,858,486
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#4,213
of 15,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,956
of 290,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#84
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,810 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 290,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 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 66% of its contemporaries.