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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11814700)

  • 1. Differences in individual susceptibility to toxic effects of chemicals determine the dose-response relationship and consequences of setting exposure standards.
    Lutz WK
    Toxicol Lett; 2002 Feb; 126(3):155-8. PubMed ID: 11814700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis reflect differences in individual susceptibility. Consequences for cancer risk assessment, extrapolation, and prevention.
    Lutz WK
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1999 Dec; 18(12):707-12. PubMed ID: 10627656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Susceptibility differences in chemical carcinogenesis linearize the dose-response relationship: threshold doses can be defined only for individuals.
    Lutz WK
    Mutat Res; 2001 Oct; 482(1-2):71-6. PubMed ID: 11535250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Evolution of industrial toxicology toward vanishing doses and the human genome].
    Colombi A; Buratti M; Rubino FM; Giampiccolo R; Pulvirenti S; Brambilla G
    Med Lav; 2003; 94(1):69-82. PubMed ID: 12768958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. [Toxicological basis for evaluating health risk].
    Rolecki R; Dutkiewicz T; Kończalik J
    Med Pr; 1992; 43(3):173-81. PubMed ID: 1406237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Interpretation of the margin of exposure for genotoxic carcinogens - elicitation of expert knowledge about the form of the dose response curve at human relevant exposures.
    Boobis A; Flari V; Gosling JP; Hart A; Craig P; Rushton L; Idahosa-Taylor E
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2013 Jul; 57():106-18. PubMed ID: 23507349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The use of Haber's law in standard setting and risk assessment.
    Gaylor DW
    Toxicology; 2000 Aug; 149(1):17-9. PubMed ID: 10963857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comprehensive approach for integration of toxicity and cancer risk assessments.
    Butterworth BE; Bogdanffy MS
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1999 Feb; 29(1):23-36. PubMed ID: 10051416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Principles of risk assessment for determining the safety of chemicals: recent assessment of residual solvents in drugs and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
    Hasegawa R; Koizumi M; Hirose A
    Congenit Anom (Kyoto); 2004 Jun; 44(2):51-9. PubMed ID: 15198717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Toxicology of chemical mixtures: challenges for today and the future.
    Feron VJ; Groten JP; Jonker D; Cassee FR; van Bladeren PJ
    Toxicology; 1995 Dec; 105(2-3):415-27. PubMed ID: 8571377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Zero exposure--a goal for environmental and occupational health?
    Aitio A
    Toxicol Lett; 2002 Aug; 134(1-3):3-8. PubMed ID: 12191855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Development of an inhalation unit risk factor for ethylene dibromide.
    Schaefer HR; Myers JL
    Inhal Toxicol; 2017 Jun; 29(7):304-309. PubMed ID: 28891353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Human carcinogenic risk evaluation, part II: contributions of the EUROTOX specialty section for carcinogenesis.
    Bolt HM; Degen GH
    Toxicol Sci; 2004 Sep; 81(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 15159528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Distributions of individual susceptibility among humans for toxic effects. How much protection does the traditional tenfold factor provide for what fraction of which kinds of chemicals and effects?
    Hattis D; Banati P; Goble R
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1999; 895():286-316. PubMed ID: 10676424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Toxicogenomics and cancer risk assessment: a framework for key event analysis and dose-response assessment for nongenotoxic carcinogens.
    Bercu JP; Jolly RA; Flagella KM; Baker TK; Romero P; Stevens JL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010 Dec; 58(3):369-81. PubMed ID: 20801182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A proposed framework for assessing risk from less-than-lifetime exposures to carcinogens.
    Felter SP; Conolly RB; Bercu JP; Bolger PM; Boobis AR; Bos PM; Carthew P; Doerrer NG; Goodman JI; Harrouk WA; Kirkland DJ; Lau SS; Llewellyn GC; Preston RJ; Schoeny R; Schnatter AR; Tritscher A; van Velsen F; Williams GM
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2011 Jul; 41(6):507-44. PubMed ID: 21591905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.