184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11890462)
1. Quantitation of molecular endpoints for the dose-response component of cancer risk assessment.
Preston RJ
Toxicol Pathol; 2002; 30(1):112-6. PubMed ID: 11890462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mechanistic data and cancer risk assessment: the need for quantitative molecular endpoints.
Preston RJ
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2005; 45(2-3):214-21. PubMed ID: 15645441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Application of transcriptional benchmark dose values in quantitative cancer and noncancer risk assessment.
Thomas RS; Clewell HJ; Allen BC; Wesselkamper SC; Wang NC; Lambert JC; Hess-Wilson JK; Zhao QJ; Andersen ME
Toxicol Sci; 2011 Mar; 120(1):194-205. PubMed ID: 21097997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Temporal concordance between apical and transcriptional points of departure for chemical risk assessment.
Thomas RS; Wesselkamper SC; Wang NC; Zhao QJ; Petersen DD; Lambert JC; Cote I; Yang L; Healy E; Black MB; Clewell HJ; Allen BC; Andersen ME
Toxicol Sci; 2013 Jul; 134(1):180-94. PubMed ID: 23596260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Is current risk assessment of non-genotoxic carcinogens protective?
Braakhuis HM; Slob W; Olthof ED; Wolterink G; Zwart EP; Gremmer ER; Rorije E; van Benthem J; Woutersen R; van der Laan JW; Luijten M
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2018 Jul; 48(6):500-511. PubMed ID: 29745287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Environmental and chemical carcinogenesis.
Wogan GN; Hecht SS; Felton JS; Conney AH; Loeb LA
Semin Cancer Biol; 2004 Dec; 14(6):473-86. PubMed ID: 15489140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Integrating pathway-based transcriptomic data into quantitative chemical risk assessment: a five chemical case study.
Thomas RS; Clewell HJ; Allen BC; Yang L; Healy E; Andersen ME
Mutat Res; 2012 Aug; 746(2):135-43. PubMed ID: 22305970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Concordance of transcriptional and apical benchmark dose levels for conazole-induced liver effects in mice.
Bhat VS; Hester SD; Nesnow S; Eastmond DA
Toxicol Sci; 2013 Nov; 136(1):205-15. PubMed ID: 23970803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Thresholds for carcinogens.
Calabrese EJ; Priest ND; Kozumbo WJ
Chem Biol Interact; 2021 May; 341():109464. PubMed ID: 33823170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Genotoxicity of 1,3-butadiene and its epoxy intermediates.
Walker VE; Walker DM; Meng Q; McDonald JD; Scott BR; Seilkop SK; Claffey DJ; Upton PB; Powley MW; Swenberg JA; Henderson RF;
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2009 Aug; (144):3-79. PubMed ID: 20017413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Moving forward in human cancer risk assessment.
Paules RS; Aubrecht J; Corvi R; Garthoff B; Kleinjans JC
Environ Health Perspect; 2011 Jun; 119(6):739-43. PubMed ID: 21147607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection.
Rhomberg LR; Baetcke K; Blancato J; Bus J; Cohen S; Conolly R; Dixit R; Doe J; Ekelman K; Fenner-Crisp P; Harvey P; Hattis D; Jacobs A; Jacobson-Kram D; Lewandowski T; Liteplo R; Pelkonen O; Rice J; Somers D; Turturro A; West W; Olin S
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007; 37(9):729-837. PubMed ID: 17957539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Inhalation cancer risk assessment of cobalt metal.
Suh M; Thompson CM; Brorby GP; Mittal L; Proctor DM
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Aug; 79():74-82. PubMed ID: 27177823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Benzo[a]pyrene-induced transcriptomic responses in primary hepatocytes and in vivo liver: toxicokinetics is essential for in vivo-in vitro comparisons.
van Kesteren PC; Zwart PE; Schaap MM; Pronk TE; van Herwijnen MH; Kleinjans JC; Bokkers BG; Godschalk RW; Zeilmaker MJ; van Steeg H; Luijten M
Arch Toxicol; 2013 Mar; 87(3):505-15. PubMed ID: 23052197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans.
Boobis AR; Cohen SM; Dellarco V; McGregor D; Meek ME; Vickers C; Willcocks D; Farland W
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2006; 36(10):781-92. PubMed ID: 17118728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Types and amounts of carcinogens as potential human cancer hazards.
Weisburger JH; Williams GM
Cell Biol Toxicol; 1989 Dec; 5(4):377-91. PubMed ID: 2627674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cancer risk assessment: historical perspectives, current issues, and future directions.
Velazquez SF; Schoeny R; Rice GE; Cogliano VJ
Drug Chem Toxicol; 1996 Aug; 19(3):161-85. PubMed ID: 8933022
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
