305 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]
