260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12052005)
1. Extending the threshold of regulation concept: de minimis limits for carcinogens and mutagens.
Fiori JM; Meyerhoff RD
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2002 Apr; 35(2 Pt 1):209-16. PubMed ID: 12052005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Setting air quality standards for carcinogens: an alternative to mathematical quantitative risk assessment-discussion paper.
Maynard RL; Cameron KM; Fielder R; McDonald A; Wadge A
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1997 Aug; 26(1 Pt 2):S60-70. PubMed ID: 9380838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Risk assessment of peak exposure to genotoxic carcinogens: a pragmatic approach.
Bos PM; Baars BJ; van Raaij MT
Toxicol Lett; 2004 Jun; 151(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15177639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Background, approaches and recent trends for setting health-based occupational exposure limits: a minireview.
Nielsen GD; Ovrebø S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Aug; 51(3):253-69. PubMed ID: 18502550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. In silico approaches to predicting cancer potency for risk assessment of genotoxic impurities in drug substances.
Bercu JP; Morton SM; Deahl JT; Gombar VK; Callis CM; van Lier RB
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010; 57(2-3):300-6. PubMed ID: 20363275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Acrylamide: review of toxicity data and dose-response analyses for cancer and noncancer effects.
Shipp A; Lawrence G; Gentry R; McDonald T; Bartow H; Bounds J; Macdonald N; Clewell H; Allen B; Van Landingham C
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2006; 36(6-7):481-608. PubMed ID: 16973444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Towards a harmonized approach for risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in the European Union.
Crebelli R
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2006; 42(2):127-31. PubMed ID: 17033132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The Viracept (nelfinavir)--ethyl methanesulfonate case: a threshold risk assessment for human exposure to a genotoxic drug contamination?
Lutz WK
Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):239-42. PubMed ID: 19695319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A rationale for determining, testing, and controlling specific impurities in pharmaceuticals that possess potential for genotoxicity.
Müller L; Mauthe RJ; Riley CM; Andino MM; Antonis DD; Beels C; DeGeorge J; De Knaep AG; Ellison D; Fagerland JA; Frank R; Fritschel B; Galloway S; Harpur E; Humfrey CD; Jacks AS; Jagota N; Mackinnon J; Mohan G; Ness DK; O'Donovan MR; Smith MD; Vudathala G; Yotti L
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Apr; 44(3):198-211. PubMed ID: 16412543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [A regulatory view on the article: Risk evaluation of carcinogens and their threshold levels, part I-III].
Dieter HH; Konietzka R
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz; 2006 Sep; 49(9):921-5. PubMed ID: 16953360
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. [What is the understanding of the scientific basis and the regulatory toxicology associated with the term "not appreciable " in the risk evaluation of carcinogens].
Dieter HH; Konietzka R; Neumann HG
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz; 2007 Aug; 50(8):1084-5. PubMed ID: 17676413
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Risk and reason. Risk assessment in relation to environmental mutagens and carcinogens. Proceedings of a satellite symposium to the Fourth International Conference on Environmental Mutagens. Oslo, Norway, June 21-22, 1985.
Prog Clin Biol Res; 1986; 208():1-189. PubMed ID: 3960880
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
