160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10049796)
21. A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: II. Construction of QSAR models to predict activities of untested chemicals.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Daniel Benz R; Ivanov J; Klopman G; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Mar; 47(2):136-55. PubMed ID: 17175082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Cimino MC; Benz RD; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):83-96. PubMed ID: 16386343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for predicting and profiling the carcinogenic potential of chemicals.
Mombelli E; Devillers J
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Oct; 21(7-8):731-52. PubMed ID: 21120759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals I. Alternative toxicity measures as an estimator of carcinogenic potency.
Venkatapathy R; Wang CY; Bruce RM; Moudgal C
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2009 Jan; 234(2):209-21. PubMed ID: 18977375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Prospects for using the SOS-Chromotest for predicting carcinogenic activity of chemical compounds].
Koreshkova SV; Tanirbergenov TB; Tarasov VA
Genetika; 1995 Jun; 31(6):861-4. PubMed ID: 7635324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Quantitative structure-carcinogenicity relationship for detecting structural alerts in nitroso compounds: species, rat; sex, female; route of administration, gavage.
Morales Helguera A; Pérez González M; Dias Soeiro Cordeiro MN; Cabrera Pérez MA
Chem Res Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 21(3):633-42. PubMed ID: 18293904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Quantitative structure carcinogenicity relationship for detecting structural alerts in nitroso-compounds: species: rat; sex: male; route of administration: water.
Helguera AM; Cordeiro MN; Pérez MA; Combes RD; González MP
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2008 Sep; 231(2):197-207. PubMed ID: 18533217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Computer-aided analysis of mutagenicity and cell transformation data for assessing their relationship with carcinogenicity.
Taningher M; Malacarne D; Perrotta A; Parodi S
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 33(3):226-39. PubMed ID: 10334625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Prediction of the rodent carcinogenicity of 60 pesticides by the DEREKfW expert system.
Crettaz P; Benigni R
J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(6):1864-73. PubMed ID: 16309294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A computerized connectivity approach for analyzing the structural basis of mutagenicity in Salmonella and its relationship with rodent carcinogenicity.
Perrotta A; Malacarne D; Taningher M; Pesenti R; Paolucci M; Parodi S
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 28(1):31-50. PubMed ID: 8698045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Development of QSAR models for predicting hepatocarcinogenic toxicity of chemicals.
Massarelli I; Imbriani M; Coi A; Saraceno M; Carli N; Bianucci AM
Eur J Med Chem; 2009 Sep; 44(9):3658-64. PubMed ID: 19272677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Evaluation of the Salmonella umu test with 83 NTP chemicals.
Yasunaga K; Kiyonari A; Oikawa T; Abe N; Yoshikawa K
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2004; 44(4):329-45. PubMed ID: 15476194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity.
Votano JR; Parham M; Hall LH; Kier LB; Oloff S; Tropsha A; Xie Q; Tong W
Mutagenesis; 2004 Sep; 19(5):365-77. PubMed ID: 15388809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. AI and SAR approaches for predicting chemical carcinogenicity: survey and status report.
Richardt AM; Benigni R
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2002 Mar; 13(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 12074379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Building an organ-specific carcinogenic database for SAR analyses.
Young J; Tong W; Fang H; Xie Q; Pearce B; Hashemi R; Beger R; Cheeseman M; Chen J; Chang YC; Kodell R
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2004 Sep; 67(17):1363-89. PubMed ID: 15371237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [Efficiency of evaluating the carcinogenicity of chemical substances in short-term tests and the SAR model].
Tarasov VA; Tsarenko NA; Mel'nik VA; Mustafaev ON; Makedonov GP; Tarasov AV
Genetika; 2009 Dec; 45(12):1674-84. PubMed ID: 20198980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A reexamination of the low prevalence of carcinogens in an early carcinogen screen.
McGregor DB; Pangrekar J; Rosenkranz HS; Klopman G
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Feb; 19(1):97-105. PubMed ID: 8159818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity utilizing a battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests.
Kim BS; Margolin BH
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 34(4):297-304. PubMed ID: 10618179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Diversity analysis of 14 156 molecules tested by the National Cancer Institute for anti-HIV activity using the quantitative structure-activity relational expert system MCASE.
Klopman G; Tu M
J Med Chem; 1999 Mar; 42(6):992-8. PubMed ID: 10090782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
