Worth Andrew

685 total citations
36 papers, 449 citations indexed

About

Worth Andrew is a scholar working on Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, Computational Theory and Mathematics and Food Science. According to data from OpenAlex, Worth Andrew has authored 36 papers receiving a total of 449 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 13 papers in Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, 9 papers in Computational Theory and Mathematics and 9 papers in Food Science. Recurrent topics in Worth Andrew's work include Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals (9 papers), Computational Drug Discovery Methods (9 papers) and Animal testing and alternatives (8 papers). Worth Andrew is often cited by papers focused on Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals (9 papers), Computational Drug Discovery Methods (9 papers) and Animal testing and alternatives (8 papers). Worth Andrew collaborates with scholars based in . Worth Andrew's co-authors include Silvia Lapenna, Rositsa Serafimova, Aude Kienzler, Raffaella Corvi, Manuela Pavan, Federica Madia, Aleksandra Mostrąg, Silvia Casati, Romualdo Benigni and Cecilia Bossa and has published in prestigious journals such as Joint Research Centre (European Commission).

In The Last Decade

Worth Andrew

35 papers receiving 410 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name	h						Papers	Cites
Worth Andrew	15	183	152	94	84	67	36	449
Claire M. Ellison United Kingdom	11	158 0.9×	242 1.6×	77 0.8×	34 0.4×	50 0.7×	14	469
Arianna Bassan Italy	13	135 0.7×	245 1.6×	71 0.8×	71 0.8×	40 0.6×	30	501
Michael Comber United Kingdom	8	191 1.0×	184 1.2×	59 0.6×	45 0.5×	115 1.7×	10	544
Chanita Kuseva Bulgaria	14	151 0.8×	262 1.7×	164 1.7×	48 0.6×	50 0.7×	20	582
Angela White United Kingdom	10	97 0.5×	131 0.9×	59 0.6×	180 2.1×	32 0.5×	22	427
Prachi Pradeep United States	14	192 1.0×	166 1.1×	127 1.4×	64 0.8×	39 0.6×	23	442
Elisabet Berggren Italy	10	318 1.7×	116 0.8×	199 2.1×	80 1.0×	100 1.5×	23	688
Etje Hulzebos Netherlands	15	319 1.7×	295 1.9×	161 1.7×	83 1.0×	145 2.2×	26	774
Atanas Chapkanov Bulgaria	8	99 0.5×	172 1.1×	70 0.7×	26 0.3×	50 0.7×	13	328
Yuki Sakuratani Japan	10	145 0.8×	134 0.9×	68 0.7×	34 0.4×	58 0.9×	23	360

Countries citing papers authored by Worth Andrew

Since Specialization

Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Worth Andrew's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Worth Andrew with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Worth Andrew more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Worth Andrew

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Worth Andrew. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Worth Andrew. The network helps show where Worth Andrew may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Worth Andrew

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Worth Andrew. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Worth Andrew based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Worth Andrew. Worth Andrew is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

20 of 20 papers shown

Leite, Sofia Batista, et al.. (2020). Establishing the scientific validity of complex in vitro models: Results of a EURL ECVAM survey. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 9 indexed citations

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2017). Evaluation of the availability and applicability of computational approaches in the safety assessment of nanomaterials: Final report of the Nanocomput project. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 11 indexed citations

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2016). Screening methodology to identify potential endocrine disruptors according to different options in the context of an impact assessment. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 5 indexed citations

Madia, Federica, Worth Andrew, & Raffaella Corvi. (2016). Analysis of carcinogenicity testing for regulatory purposes in the European Union. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 11 indexed citations

Kienzler, Aude, et al.. (2015). Scientific methodologies for the assessment of combined effects of chemicals - a survey and literature review. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 32 indexed citations

Kienzler, Aude, et al.. (2014). EURL ECVAM Strategy to replace, reduce and refine the use of fish in aquatic toxicity and bioaccumulation testing. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 18 indexed citations

Casati, Silvia, et al.. (2013). EURL ECVAM Strategy for Replacement of Animal Testing for Skin Sensitisation Hazard Identification and Classification. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 12 indexed citations

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2012). Applicability of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach to cosmetics – preliminary analysis. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 7 indexed citations

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2012). An investigation into the use of computational and in vitro methods for acute systemic toxicity prediction. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 7 indexed citations

10.

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2011). The Use of Computational Methods in the Toxicological Assessment of Chemicals in Food: Current Status and Future Prospects. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 18 indexed citations

11.

Asturiol, David & Worth Andrew. (2011). The Use of Chemical Reactivity Assays in Toxicity Prediction. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 8 indexed citations

12.

Lapenna, Silvia, et al.. (2010). Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for predicting Acute and Chronic Systemic Toxicity. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 46 indexed citations

13.

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2010). The Applicability of Software Tools for Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Prediction: Case Studies relevant to the Assessment of Pesticides. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 15 indexed citations

14.

Mostrąg, Aleksandra & Worth Andrew. (2010). In silico modelling of microbial and human metabolism: a case study with the fungicide carbendazim. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 1 indexed citations

15.

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2008). Possible Application of Non-Testing Methods in Setting Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 4 indexed citations

16.

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2007). Classification of Phthalates According to Their (Q)SAR Predicted Acute Toxicity to Fish: A Case Study.. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 3 indexed citations

17.

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2007). Development and Beta Testing of the Toxmatch Similarity Tool. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 1 indexed citations

18.

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2005). Comparative Review of QSARs for Acute Toxicity Part I: QSARs for Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms Part II: QSARs for Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 2 indexed citations

19.

Andrew, Worth, et al.. (2005). A Similarity Based Approach for Chemical Category Classification. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 5 indexed citations

20.

Pavan, Manuela, et al.. (2005). Preliminary Analysis of an Aquatic Toxicity Dataset and Assessment of QSAR Models for Narcosis. Joint Research Centre (European Commission). 10 indexed citations

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact