↓ Skip to main content

A new classifier-based strategy for in-silico ion-channel cardiac drug safety assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
A new classifier-based strategy for in-silico ion-channel cardiac drug safety assessment
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2015.00059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hitesh B. Mistry, Mark R. Davies, Giovanni Y. Di Veroli

Abstract

There is currently a strong interest in using high-throughput in-vitro ion-channel screening data to make predictions regarding the cardiac toxicity potential of a new compound in both animal and human studies. A recent FDA think tank encourages the use of biophysical mathematical models of cardiac myocytes for this prediction task. However, it remains unclear whether this approach is the most appropriate. Here we examine five literature data-sets that have been used to support the use of four different biophysical models and one statistical model for predicting cardiac toxicity in numerous species using various endpoints. We propose a simple model that represents the balance between repolarisation and depolarisation forces and compare the predictive power of the model against the original results (leave-one-out cross-validation). Our model showed equivalent performance when compared to the four biophysical models and one statistical model. We therefore conclude that this approach should be further investigated in the context of early cardiac safety screening when in-vitro potency data is generated.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 7%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 24%
Computer Science 4 14%
Engineering 3 10%
Mathematics 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 5 17%
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 27 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,327,280
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#6,394
of 16,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,014
of 263,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#42
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,014 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 56% 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 263,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.