Evaluation of In Silico models for the identification of respiratory sensitizers
Toxicological Sciences, ISSN: 1096-0929, Vol: 142, Issue: 2, Page: 385-394
2014
- 34Citations
- 44Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations34
- Citation Indexes30
- 30
- CrossRef21
- Policy Citations4
- Policy Citation4
- Captures44
- Readers44
- 44
Article Description
Low molecular weight (LMW) respiratory sensitizers can cause occupational asthma but due to a lack of adequate test methods, prospective identification of respiratory sensitizers is currently not possible. This article presents the evaluation of structure-activity relationship (SAR) models as potential methods to prospectively conclude on the sensitization potential of LMW chemicals. The predictive performance of the SARs calculated from their training sets was compared to their performance on a dataset of newly identified respiratory sensitizers and nonsensitizers, derived from literature. The predictivity of the available SARs for new substances was markedly lower than their published predictive performance. For that reason, no single SAR model can be considered sufficiently reliable to conclude on potential LMW respiratory sensitization properties of a substance. The individual applicability domains (ADs) of the models were analyzed for adequacies and deficiencies. Based on these findings, a tiered prediction approach is subsequently proposed. This approach combines the two SARs with the highest positive and negative predictivity taking into account model specific chemical AD issues. The tiered approach provided reliable predictions for one-third of the respiratory sensitizers and nonsensitizers of the external validation set compiled by us. For these chemicals, a positive predictive value of 96% and a negative predictive value of 89% were obtained. The tiered approach was not able to predict the other two-thirds of the chemicals, meaning that additional information is required and that there is an urgent need for other test methods, e.g., in chemico or in vitro, to reach a reliable conclusion.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84922418734&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfu188; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25239631; https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfu188; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfu188; https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/142/2/385/3064899; http://www.toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfu188; https://academic.oup.com/toxsci; http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/142/2/385; https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-pdf/142/2/385/16687271/kfu188.pdf; http://www.toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfu188; http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfu188; http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfu188
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know