Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods

Open access
Urbisch, Daniel, Mehling, Annette, Guth, Katharina, Ramirez, Tzutzuy, Honarvar, Naveed, Kolle, Susanne, Landsiedel, Robert, Jaworska, Joanna, Kern, Petra S., Gerberick, Frank, Natsch, Andreas, Emter, Roger, Ashikaga, Takao, Miyazawa, Masaaki, Sakaguchi, Hitoshi·2015·Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
DOI 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Sensitization, the prerequisite event in the development of allergic contact dermatitis, is a key parameter in both hazard and risk assessments. The pathways involved have recently been formally described in the OECD adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization. One single non-animal test method will not be sufficient to fully address this AOP and in many cases the use of a battery of tests will be necessary. A number of methods are now fully developed and validated. In order to facilitate acceptance of these methods by both the regulatory and scientific communities, results of the single test methods (DPRA, KeratinoSens, LuSens, h-CLAT, (m)MUSST) as well for a the simple '2 out of 3' ITS for 213 substances have been compiled and qualitatively compared to both animal and human data. The dataset was also used to define different mechanistic domains by probable protein-binding mechanisms. In general, the non-animal test methods exhibited good predictivities when compared to local lymph node assay (LLNA) data and even better predictivities when compared to human data. The '2 out of 3' prediction model achieved accuracies of 90% or 79% when compared to human or LLNA data, respectively and thereby even slightly exceeded that of the LLNA.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.008

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Urbisch, D., Mehling, A., Guth, K., Ramirez, T., Honarvar, N., Kolle, S., Landsiedel, R., Jaworska, J., Kern, P. S., Gerberick, F., Natsch, A., Emter, R., Ashikaga, T., Miyazawa, M., & Sakaguchi, H.
Venue
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
71
Issue
2
Pages
337-351
ISSN
0273-2300 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.008
OpenAlex
W1966327639
Cited by
398
References
45
FWCI
33.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.008
The paper
Urbisch, D., Mehling, A., Guth, K., Ramirez, T., Honarvar, N., Kolle, S., Landsiedel, R., Jaworska, J., Kern, P. S., Gerberick, F., Natsch, A., Emter, R., Ashikaga, T., Miyazawa, M., & Sakaguchi, H. (2015). Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.