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 *

299 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11760810)

  • 1. Scientific analysis of the proposed uses of the T25 dose descriptor in chemical carcinogen regulation.
    Roberts RA; Crump KS; Lutz WK; Wiegand HJ; Williams GM; Harrison PT; Purchase IF
    Arch Toxicol; 2001 Nov; 75(9):507-12. PubMed ID: 11760810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A simple method for quantitative risk assessment of non-threshold carcinogens based on the dose descriptor T25.
    Sanner T; Dybing E; Willems MI; Kroese ED
    Pharmacol Toxicol; 2001 Jun; 88(6):331-41. PubMed ID: 11453374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of carcinogenic and in vivo genotoxic potency estimates.
    Sanner T; Dybing E
    Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005 Feb; 96(2):131-9. PubMed ID: 15679476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Risk assessment of dietary exposures to compounds that are genotoxic and carcinogenic--an overview.
    Dybing E; O'Brien J; Renwick AG; Sanner T
    Toxicol Lett; 2008 Aug; 180(2):110-7. PubMed ID: 18584977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of carcinogen hazard characterisation based on animal studies and epidemiology.
    Sanner T; Dybing E
    Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005 Jan; 96(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 15667598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Approaches to the risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in food: a critical appraisal.
    O'Brien J; Renwick AG; Constable A; Dybing E; Müller DJ; Schlatter J; Slob W; Tueting W; van Benthem J; Williams GM; Wolfreys A
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2006 Oct; 44(10):1613-35. PubMed ID: 16887251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The linearized multistage model and the future of quantitative risk assessment.
    Crump KS
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1996 Oct; 15(10):787-98. PubMed ID: 8906427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of the EU T25 single point estimate method with benchmark dose response modeling for estimating potency of carcinogens.
    Van Landingham CB; Allen BC; Shipp AM; Crump KS
    Risk Anal; 2001 Aug; 21(4):641-56. PubMed ID: 11726018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hazard identification, classification, and risk assessment of carcinogens: too much or too little? - Report of an ECETOC workshop.
    Felter SP; Boobis AR; Botham PA; Brousse A; Greim H; Hollnagel HM; Sauer UG
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2020 Jan; 50(1):72-95. PubMed ID: 32133908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Linear-No-Threshold Default Assumptions for Noncancer and Nongenotoxic Cancer Risks: A Mathematical and Biological Critique.
    Bogen KT
    Risk Anal; 2016 Mar; 36(3):589-604. PubMed ID: 26249816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The influence of thresholds on the risk assessment of carcinogens in food.
    Pratt I; Barlow S; Kleiner J; Larsen JC
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):113-7. PubMed ID: 19442758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quantitative risk assessment and the limitations of the linearized multistage model.
    Lovell DP; Thomas G
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1996 Feb; 15(2):87-104. PubMed ID: 8645508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective.
    Bolt HM; Foth H; Hengstler JG; Degen GH
    Toxicol Lett; 2004 Jun; 151(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 15177638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment.
    Calabrese EJ
    Arch Toxicol; 2009 Mar; 83(3):203-25. PubMed ID: 19247635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. T25: a simplified carcinogenic potency index: description of the system and study of correlations between carcinogenic potency and species/site specificity and mutagenicity.
    Dybing E; Sanner T; Roelfzema H; Kroese D; Tennant RW
    Pharmacol Toxicol; 1997 Jun; 80(6):272-9. PubMed ID: 9225363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. ECETOC Florence workshop on risk assessment of endocrine substances, including the potency concept.
    Fegert I
    Toxicol Lett; 2013 Dec; 223(3):310-4. PubMed ID: 23558296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Regulatory cancer risk assessment based on a quick estimate of a benchmark dose derived from the maximum tolerated dose.
    Gaylor DW; Swirsky Gold L
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Dec; 28(3):222-5. PubMed ID: 10049793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A strategy for establishing mode of action of chemical carcinogens as a guide for approaches to risk assessments.
    Butterworth BE; Conolly RB; Morgan KT
    Cancer Lett; 1995 Jun; 93(1):129-46. PubMed ID: 7600540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A perspective on current and future uses of alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.
    Goodman JI
    Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():173-6. PubMed ID: 11695554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.