Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Computational Toxicology—A State of the Science Mini Review

Kavlock, Robert J., Ankley, Gerald, Blancato, Jerry, Breen, Michael, Conolly, Rory, Dix, David, Houck, Keith, Hubal, Elaine, Judson, Richard, Rabinowitz, James, Richard, Ann, Setzer, R. Woodrow, Shah, Imran, Villeneuve, Daniel, Weber, Eric·2008·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

Advances in computer sciences and hardware combined with equally significant developments in molecular biology and chemistry are providing toxicology with a powerful new tool box. This tool box of computational models promises to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness by which the hazards and risks of environmental chemicals are determined. Computational toxicology focuses on applying these tools across many scales, including vastly increasing the numbers of chemicals and the types of biological interactions that can be evaluated. In addition, knowledge of toxicity pathways gathered within the tool box will be directly applicable to the study of the biological responses across a range of dose levels, including those more likely to be representative of exposures to the human population. Progress in this field will facilitate the transformative shift called for in the recent report on toxicology in the 21st century by the National Research Council. This review surveys the state of the art in many areas of computational toxicology and points to several hurdles that will be important to overcome as the field moves forward. Proof-of-concept studies need to clearly demonstrate the additional predictive power gained from these tools. More researchers need to become comfortable working with both the data generating tools and the computational modeling capabilities, and regulatory authorities must show a willingness to the embrace new approaches as they gain scientific acceptance. The next few years should witness the early fruits of these efforts, but as the National Research Council indicates, the paradigm shift will take a long term investment and commitment to reach full potential.

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 · 10.1093/toxsci/kfm297

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 181

Metadata

Authors
Kavlock, R. J., Ankley, G., Blancato, J., Breen, M., Conolly, R., Dix, D., Houck, K., Hubal, E., Judson, R., Rabinowitz, J., Richard, A., Setzer, R. W., Shah, I., Villeneuve, D., & Weber, E.
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2007-12-07
Volume
103
Issue
1
Pages
14-27
ISSN
  • 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-6080
OpenAlex
W2169600586
Cited by
181
References
4
FWCI
13.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Computational Toxicology—A State of the Science Mini Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/toxsci/kfm297
The paper
Kavlock, R. J., Ankley, G., Blancato, J., Breen, M., Conolly, R., Dix, D., Houck, K., Hubal, E., Judson, R., Rabinowitz, J., Richard, A., Setzer, R. W., Shah, I., Villeneuve, D., & Weber, E. (2008). Computational Toxicology—A State of the Science Mini Review. Toxicological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfm297

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.