Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Cronin, John Walker, J. Jaworska, M. Comber, C. Watts, Andrew Worth (2003)
Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecologic effects and environmental fate of chemical substances.Environmental Health Perspectives, 111
John Walker, J. Jaworska, M. Comber, T. Schultz, J. Dearden (2003)
Guidelines for developing and using quantitative structure‐activity relationshipsEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22
M. Cronin, J. Jaworska, John Walker, M. Comber, C. Watts, Andrew Worth (2003)
Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances.Environmental Health Perspectives, 111
R. Combes, P. Judson (1995)
The use of artificial intelligence systems for predicting toxicityPesticide Science, 45
J. Dearden (2003)
In silico prediction of drug toxicityJournal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 17
J. Jaworska, Mike Comber, C. Auer, C. Leeuwen (2003)
Summary of a workshop on regulatory acceptance of (Q)SARs for human health and environmental endpoints.Environmental Health Perspectives, 111
M. Cronin, D. Livingstone (2004)
Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate
This document discusses recommendations made by FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) with regard to the current European Commission proposals on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) system for assessing the risks of chemicals to humans, wildlife and the environment. Of several common aims and recommendations, the two most important are: a) the greater use of non-animal testing methods, especially computational prediction methods (for example, [quantitative] structure–activity relationships, expert systems and biokinetic modelling) for prioritising chemicals for hazard assessment; and b) the greater use of intelligent exposure-based targeted risk assessment, with less emphasis being placed on tonnage-triggers. FRAME has produced a decision-tree testing scheme to illustrate the way in which these approaches could be used, together with in vitro test methods. This scheme has been slightly modified to take account of proposals subsequently made by the RCEP. In addition, FRAME points out that new and improved computational methods are needed through more coordinated research, and that these and existing methods need to be validated. The similarities between the independent publications of FRAME and the RCEP add weight to the recommendations that each have made concerning the implementation of the REACH system.
Alternatives to Laboratory Animals – SAGE
Published: Sep 1, 2003
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.