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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11380171)

  • 1. Dose-response assessment by a fuzzy linear-regression method.
    Lee YW; Chung SY; Bogardi I; Dahab MF; Oh SE
    Water Sci Technol; 2001; 43(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 11380171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Fuzzy sets applications for cancer risk assessment.
    Molchanov PA; Dudatiev AV; Podobna YY; Molchanova OP
    Cent Eur J Public Health; 2002 Sep; 10(3):121-3. PubMed ID: 12298344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Ethyl methanesulfonate toxicity in Viracept--a comprehensive human risk assessment based on threshold data for genotoxicity.
    Müller L; Gocke E; Lavé T; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):317-29. PubMed ID: 19443141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cancer risk assessment for 1,3-butadiene: data integration opportunities.
    Preston RJ
    Chem Biol Interact; 2007 Mar; 166(1-3):150-5. PubMed ID: 16647696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Addressing nonlinearity in the exposure-response relationship for a genotoxic carcinogen: cancer potency estimates for ethylene oxide.
    Kirman CR; Sweeney LM; Teta MJ; Sielken RL; Valdez-Flores C; Albertini RJ; Gargas ML
    Risk Anal; 2004 Oct; 24(5):1165-83. PubMed ID: 15563286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Analysis of in vivo mutation data can inform cancer risk assessment.
    Moore MM; Heflich RH; Haber LT; Allen BC; Shipp AM; Kodell RL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Jul; 51(2):151-61. PubMed ID: 18321622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fuzzy risk matrix.
    Markowski AS; Mannan MS
    J Hazard Mater; 2008 Nov; 159(1):152-7. PubMed ID: 18440700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for risk assessment of groundwater contamination.
    Li J; Huang GH; Zeng G; Maqsood I; Huang Y
    J Environ Manage; 2007 Jan; 82(2):173-88. PubMed ID: 16574309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Revised assessment of cancer risk to dichloromethane: part I Bayesian PBPK and dose-response modeling in mice.
    Marino DJ; Clewell HJ; Gentry PR; Covington TR; Hack CE; David RM; Morgott DA
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Jun; 45(1):44-54. PubMed ID: 16442684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Fuzzy logic-based tumor marker profiles improved sensitivity of the detection of progression in small-cell lung cancer patients.
    Schneider J; Peltri G; Bitterlich N; Philipp M; Velcovsky HG; Morr H; Katz N; Eigenbrodt E
    Clin Exp Med; 2003 Feb; 2(4):185-91. PubMed ID: 12624710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Risk management of BTEX contamination in ground water--an integrated fuzzy approach.
    Qin XS; Huang GH; Li YP
    Ground Water; 2008; 46(5):755-67. PubMed ID: 18624694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Hierarchical models for probabilistic dose-response assessment.
    Kodell RL; Chen JJ; Delongchamp RR; Young JF
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Aug; 45(3):265-72. PubMed ID: 16769166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparative analysis of methods to represent uncertainty in estimating the cost of constructing wastewater treatment plants.
    Chen HW; Chang NB
    J Environ Manage; 2002 Aug; 65(4):383-409. PubMed ID: 12369402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistics for risk assessment of chemical carcinogens.
    Chen JJ; Chen YJ; Cheng KF
    J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2007; 25(4):281-312. PubMed ID: 18000784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Dose-response modeling of in vivo genotoxicity data for use in risk assessment: some approaches illustrated by an analysis of acrylamide.
    Allen B; Zeiger E; Lawrence G; Friedman M; Shipp A
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Feb; 41(1):6-27. PubMed ID: 15649824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Literature review on the genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity of ethyl methanesulfonate.
    Gocke E; Bürgin H; Müller L; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):254-65. PubMed ID: 19857796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cancer risk assessment for 1,3-butadiene: dose-response modeling from an epidemiological perspective.
    Sielken RL; Valdez-Flores C; Gargas ML; Kirman CR; Teta MJ; Delzell E
    Chem Biol Interact; 2007 Mar; 166(1-3):140-9. PubMed ID: 16876150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Future of toxicology--low-dose toxicology and risk--benefit analysis.
    Rietjens IM; Alink GM
    Chem Res Toxicol; 2006 Aug; 19(8):977-81. PubMed ID: 16918235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fuzzy QSARs for predicting logKoc of persistent organic pollutants.
    Uddameri V; Kuchanur M
    Chemosphere; 2004 Feb; 54(6):771-6. PubMed ID: 14602110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
    Gaylor DW
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.