164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10208502)
21. Skin irritation and sensitization: mechanisms and new approaches for risk assessment.
Basketter D; Darlenski R; Fluhr JW
Skin Pharmacol Physiol; 2008; 21(4):191-202. PubMed ID: 18509253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. An alternative strategy to the use of guinea pigs for the identification of skin sensitization hazard.
Basketter DA; Scholes EW; Chamberlain M; Barratt MD
Food Chem Toxicol; 1995 Dec; 33(12):1051-6. PubMed ID: 8847001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Good opportunities to prevent contact eczema through legislation].
Lidén C
Lakartidningen; 2002 Feb; 99(7):651-4. PubMed ID: 11887712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. In vitro approaches to the identification and characterization of skin sensitizers.
Basketter D; Maxwell G
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2007; 26(4):359-73. PubMed ID: 18058309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A review of substances found positive in 1 of 3 in vitro tests for skin sensitization.
Kolle SN; Natsch A; Gerberick GF; Landsiedel R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Aug; 106():352-368. PubMed ID: 31112722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A quantitative approach to assess the potency of skin sensitizers in the elicitation phase.
Ezendam J; Vermeulen JP; de Klerk A; de Jong WH; van Loveren H
Toxicology; 2012 Sep; 299(1):20-4. PubMed ID: 22564262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay: a commentary and the implications for REACH.
Basketter DA; McFadden JF; Gerberick F; Cockshott A; Kimber I
Contact Dermatitis; 2009 Feb; 60(2):65-9. PubMed ID: 19207375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Skin sensitization risk assessment: a comparative evaluation of 3 isothiazolinone biocides.
Basketter DA; Rodford R; Kimber I; Smith I; Wahlberg JE
Contact Dermatitis; 1999 Mar; 40(3):150-4. PubMed ID: 10073443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Potency values from the local lymph node assay: application to classification, labelling and risk assessment.
Loveless SE; Api AM; Crevel RW; Debruyne E; Gamer A; Jowsey IR; Kern P; Kimber I; Lea L; Lloyd P; Mehmood Z; Steiling W; Veenstra G; Woolhiser M; Hennes C
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010 Feb; 56(1):54-66. PubMed ID: 19733604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Classification of dermal sensitizers in pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Winkler GC; Perino C; Araya SH; Bechter R; Kuster M; Lovsin Barle E
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Aug; 72(3):501-5. PubMed ID: 26028366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. When should a substance be designated as sensitizing for the skin ('Sh') or for the airways ('Sa')?
Schnuch A; Lessmann H; Schulz KH; Becker D; Diepgen TL; Drexler H; Erdmann S; Fartasch M; Greim H; Kricke-Helling P; Merget R; Merk H; Nowak D; Rothe A; Stropp G; Uter W; Wallenstein G
Hum Exp Toxicol; 2002 Aug; 21(8):439-44. PubMed ID: 12412637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Dose metrics in the acquisition of skin sensitization: thresholds and importance of dose per unit area.
Kimber I; Dearman RJ; Basketter DA; Ryan CA; Gerberick GF; McNamee PM; Lalko J; Api AM
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Oct; 52(1):39-45. PubMed ID: 18423821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Novel approach for classifying chemicals according to skin sensitizing potency by non-radioisotopic modification of the local lymph node assay.
Takeyoshi M; Iida K; Shiraishi K; Hoshuyama S
J Appl Toxicol; 2005; 25(2):129-34. PubMed ID: 15744759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Is European legislation killing allergy diagnostics?
Zuberbier T; Werfel T
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol; 2012 Oct; 12(5):475-6. PubMed ID: 22892712
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Application of the dermal sensitization threshold concept to chemicals classified as high potency category for skin sensitization assessment of ingredients for consumer products.
Nishijo T; Api AM; Gerberick GF; Miyazawa M; Roberts DW; Safford RJ; Sakaguchi H
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2020 Nov; 117():104732. PubMed ID: 32795584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The local lymph node assay: a viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitization tests.
Basketter DA; Gerberick GF; Kimber I; Loveless SE
Food Chem Toxicol; 1996 Oct; 34(10):985-97. PubMed ID: 9012774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. In vitro and in vivo testing techniques for allergic contact dermatitis.
Gerberick GF; Sikorski EE
Am J Contact Dermat; 1998 Jun; 9(2):111-8. PubMed ID: 9601899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Computer models versus reality: how well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization potential of a substance.
Teubner W; Mehling A; Schuster PX; Guth K; Worth A; Burton J; van Ravenzwaay B; Landsiedel R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Dec; 67(3):468-85. PubMed ID: 24090701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Use of the local lymph node assay in the evaluation of the sensitizing potential of pharmaceutical process intermediates.
Durand G; de Burlet G; Virat M; Nauman BD
Contact Dermatitis; 2003 Sep; 49(3):148-54. PubMed ID: 14678211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Activity of human contact allergens in the murine local lymph node assay.
Ryan CA; Gerberick GF; Cruse LW; Basketter DA; Lea L; Blaikie L; Dearman RJ; Warbrick EV; Kimber I
Contact Dermatitis; 2000 Aug; 43(2):95-102. PubMed ID: 10945748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
