↓ Skip to main content

Cord Blood Cells for Developmental Toxicology and Environmental Health

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Cord Blood Cells for Developmental Toxicology and Environmental Health
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00265
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dora Il’yasova, Noreen Kloc, Alexander Kinev

Abstract

The Tox21 program initiated a shift in toxicology toward in vitro testing with a focus on the biological mechanisms responsible for toxicological response. We discuss the applications of these initiatives to developmental toxicology. Specifically, we briefly review current approaches that are widely used in developmental toxicology to demonstrate the gap in relevance to human populations. An important aspect of human relevance is the wide variability of cellular responses to toxicants. We discuss how this gap can be addressed by using cells isolated from umbilical cord blood, an entirely non-invasive source of fetal/newborn cells. Extension of toxicological testing to collections of human fetal/newborn cells would be useful for better understanding the effect of toxicants on fetal development in human populations. By presenting this perspective, we aim to initiate a discussion about the use of cord blood donor-specific cells to capture the variability of cellular toxicological responses during this vulnerable stage of human development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,427,128
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,087
of 9,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,230
of 387,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#8
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 387,656 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.