These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10930051)

  • 1. Pathology and tissue sampling protocols for rodent carcinogenicity studies: time for revision.
    Leblanc B
    Toxicol Pathol; 2000; 28(4):628-33. PubMed ID: 10930051
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Appropriate parameters to be tested in rodent oncogenicity studies.
    Long GG; Symanowski JT
    Toxicol Pathol; 1998; 26(3):319-20. PubMed ID: 9608637
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Society of toxicologic pathology position on assessment of hyperplastic lesions in rodent carcinogenicity studies.
    Boorman G; Dixon D; Elwell M; Kerlin R; Morton D; Peters T; Regan K; Sullivan J;
    Toxicol Pathol; 2004; 32(1):124-5. PubMed ID: 14713557
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Will all chemicals be carcinogenic to rodents when adequately evaluated?
    Ashby J; Purchase IF
    Mutagenesis; 1993 Nov; 8(6):489-93. PubMed ID: 8133777
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Society of toxicologic pathology position paper: diet as a variable in rodent toxicology and carcinogenicity studies.
    Nold JB; Keenan KP; Nyska A; Cartwright ME
    Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29(5):585-6. PubMed ID: 11695576
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Supplement 1, Toxicologic Pathology, March/April 2004 should be must reading for all pathologists.
    Wagner BM
    Toxicol Pathol; 2004; 32(5):613. PubMed ID: 15603545
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Best practices for use of historical control data of proliferative rodent lesions.
    Keenan C; Elmore S; Francke-Carroll S; Kemp R; Kerlin R; Peddada S; Pletcher J; Rinke M; Schmidt SP; Taylor I; Wolf DC
    Toxicol Pathol; 2009 Aug; 37(5):679-93. PubMed ID: 19454599
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Carcinogenicity evaluation: comparison of tumor data from dual control groups in the CD-1 mouse.
    Baldrick P; Reeve L
    Toxicol Pathol; 2007 Jun; 35(4):562-9. PubMed ID: 17562489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. International Conference on Harmonisation; proposed change to rodent carcinogenicity testing of pharmaceuticals; request for comments. Notice; request for comments.
    Food and Drug Administration, HHS
    Fed Regist; 2013 Mar; 78(52):16681-4. PubMed ID: 23530289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review in carcinogenicity bioassays: uses/abuses.
    McConnell EE; Eustis SL
    Toxicol Pathol; 1994; 22(2):141-4. PubMed ID: 7973361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Activity of human carcinogens in the Salmonella and rodent bone marrow cytogenetic tests.
    Nersessians AK
    Mutat Res; 1992 Apr; 281(4):239-43. PubMed ID: 1373216
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Chemically induced preneoplastic lesions in rodents as indicators of carcinogenic activity.
    Williams GM
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):185-202. PubMed ID: 10353388
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection. Letter.
    Schafer KA; Sellers R; Barale-Thomas E
    Toxicol Pathol; 2008 Dec; 36(7):1018-9. PubMed ID: 19126796
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The International Life Sciences Institute's role in the evaluation of alternative methodologies for the assessment of carcinogenic risk.
    Robinson D
    Toxicol Pathol; 1998; 26(4):474-5. PubMed ID: 9715505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Can rodent cancer tests predict for human cancers? Proceedings of a toxicology symposium. Little Rock, Arkansas, USA. November 12-13, 1998.
    Drug Metab Rev; 2000 May; 32(2):119-266. PubMed ID: 10950630
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The in vivo rodent test systems for assessment of carcinogenic potential.
    van der Laan JW; Spindler P
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2002 Feb; 35(1):122-5. PubMed ID: 11846641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Regulatory Forum commentary: alternative mouse models for future cancer risk assessment.
    Morton D; Sistare FD; Nambiar PR; Turner OC; Radi Z; Bower N
    Toxicol Pathol; 2014 Jul; 42(5):799-806. PubMed ID: 23965809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Recommended tissue list for histopathologic examination in repeat-dose toxicity and carcinogenicity studies: a proposal of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP).
    Bregman CL; Adler RR; Morton DG; Regan KS; Yano BL;
    Toxicol Pathol; 2003; 31(2):252-3. PubMed ID: 12696587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Potential for a global historical control database for proliferative rodent lesions.
    Keenan C; Elmore S; Francke-Carroll S; Kerlin R; Peddada S; Pletcher J; Rinke M; Schmidt SP; Taylor I; Wolf DC
    Toxicol Pathol; 2009 Aug; 37(5):677-8. PubMed ID: 19638441
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quality review procedures necessary for rodent pathology databases and toxicogenomic studies: the National Toxicology Program experience.
    Boorman GA; Haseman JK; Waters MD; Hardisty JF; Sills RC
    Toxicol Pathol; 2002; 30(1):88-92. PubMed ID: 11890481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.