1996
DOI: 10.1016/0278-6915(96)89525-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The CFTA evaluation of alternatives program: An evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase III) surfactant-based formulations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
37
0
4

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
37
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Our Wnding that classiWcation schemes bias the underlying experiment adds to the problem of the imperfect reference standard which in vitro toxicology faces regularly (Gettings et al, 1996;Worth and Cronin, 2001). The animal test is imperfect, since assessment of its predictive capacity for human health eVects is limited by absence of relevant comparative human data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our Wnding that classiWcation schemes bias the underlying experiment adds to the problem of the imperfect reference standard which in vitro toxicology faces regularly (Gettings et al, 1996;Worth and Cronin, 2001). The animal test is imperfect, since assessment of its predictive capacity for human health eVects is limited by absence of relevant comparative human data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison with other cytotoxicity tests, RBC hemolysis test is clear and simple and mammalian RBC is easy to get. But so far, this test has not been validated other than for surfactants (60). …”
Section: Alternatives To Draize Rabbit Eye Irritation Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, organotypic models have warranted sufficient interest as methods that maintain short-term normal physiological and biochemical function of the mammalian cornea in an isolated system (Barile 2007; Cooper et al 2001; Gettings et al 1996; Muir 1985). In these test methods, damage by the test substance is assessed by quantitative measurements of changes in corneal opacity and permeability using opacitometry and spectrophotometry, respectively.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%