Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 836

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current Status of Methods for Defining the Applicability Domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships: The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52,

Netzeva, Tatiana I., Worth, Andrew P., Aldenberg, Tom, Benigni, Romualdo, Cronin, Mark T.D., Gramatica, Paola, Jaworska, Joanna S., Kahn, Scott, Klopman, Gilles, Marchant, Carol A., Myatt, Glenn, Nikolova-Jeliazkova, Nina, Patlewicz, Grace Y., Perkins, Roger, Roberts, David W., Schultz, Terry W., Stanton, David T., van de Sandt, Johannes J.M., Tong, Weida, Veith, Gilman, Yang, Chihae·2005·Alternatives to Laboratory Animals
DOI 10.1177/026119290503300209
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This is the 52nd report of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). The main objective of ECVAM, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences, and that reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals. The ECVAM workshop on the quantitative structure-activity relationship applicability domain was held at ECVAM on 29 September–1 October 2004, under the chairmanship of Andrew Worth. The workshop was attended by experts from academia, industry, international organisations and regulatory authorities. The aim of the workshop was to review the state of the art of methods for identifying the domain of applicability of structure-activity relationships (SARs) and quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs), collectively referred to as (Q)SARs. The report is intended to provide a source of input to the development of an OECD Guidance Document on (Q)SAR Validation. The report also makes recommendations for further research needed to understand and apply the concept of the (Q)SAR applicability domain (AD).

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 · 10.1177/026119290503300209

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

See all 836

Metadata

Authors
Netzeva, T. I., Worth, A. P., Aldenberg, T., Benigni, R., Cronin, M. T. D., Gramatica, P., Jaworska, J. S., Kahn, S., Klopman, G., Marchant, C. A., Myatt, G., Nikolova-Jeliazkova, N., Patlewicz, G. Y., Perkins, R., Roberts, D. W., Schultz, T. W., Stanton, D. T., van de Sandt, J. J. M., Tong, W., Veith, G., & Yang, C.
Venue
Alternatives to Laboratory Animals
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-04
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
155-173
ISSN
  • 0261-1929 (ISSN-L)
  • 2632-3559
DOI
10.1177/026119290503300209
OpenAlex
W1570912112
Cited by
836
References
30
FWCI
20.71
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: Current Status of Methods for Defining the Applicability Domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships: The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52,. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/026119290503300209
The paper
Netzeva, T. I., Worth, A. P., Aldenberg, T., Benigni, R., Cronin, M. T. D., Gramatica, P., Jaworska, J. S., Kahn, S., Klopman, G., Marchant, C. A., Myatt, G., Nikolova-Jeliazkova, N., Patlewicz, G. Y., Perkins, R., Roberts, D. W., Schultz, T. W., Stanton, D. T., van de Sandt, J. J. M., Tong, W., . . . Yang, C. (2005). Current Status of Methods for Defining the Applicability Domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships: The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52,. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290503300209

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.