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 *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14506871)

  • 1. (Q)SARs: gatekeepers against risk on chemicals?
    Hulzebos EM; Posthumus R
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2003 Aug; 14(4):285-316. PubMed ID: 14506871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems.
    Hulzebos E; Sijm D; Traas T; Posthumus R; Maslankiewicz L
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2005 Aug; 16(4):385-401. PubMed ID: 16234178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Development and validation of a quantitative structure-activity relationship for chronic narcosis to fish.
    Claeys L; Iaccino F; Janssen CR; Van Sprang P; Verdonck F
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Oct; 32(10):2217-25. PubMed ID: 23775559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Ecotoxicological QSAR modeling of organic compounds against fish: Application of fragment based descriptors in feature analysis.
    Khan K; Baderna D; Cappelli C; Toma C; Lombardo A; Roy K; Benfenati E
    Aquat Toxicol; 2019 Jul; 212():162-174. PubMed ID: 31128417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The role of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) in the validation of (Q)SARs.
    Worth AP; Hartung T; Van Leeuwen CJ
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004; 15(5-6):345-58. PubMed ID: 15669694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Prediction of mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, developmental toxicity, and skin sensitisation with Caesar program for a set of conazoles.
    Bolčič-Tavčar M; Vračko M
    Arh Hig Rada Toksikol; 2012 Sep; 63(3):283-92. PubMed ID: 23152378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. On the number of EINECS compounds that can be covered by (Q)SAR models for acute toxicity.
    Zvinavashe E; Murk AJ; Rietjens IM
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Jan; 184(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 19041378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Commentary on the application of (Q)SAR to the toxicological evaluation of existing chemicals.
    Pölloth C; Mangelsdorf I
    Chemosphere; 1997 Dec; 35(11):2525-42. PubMed ID: 9394448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. ECOSAR model performance with a large test set of industrial chemicals.
    Reuschenbach P; Silvani M; Dammann M; Warnecke D; Knacker T
    Chemosphere; 2008 May; 71(10):1986-95. PubMed ID: 18262586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Regulatory use of (Q)SARs in toxicological hazard assessment strategies.
    Gerner I; Spielmann H; Hoefer T; Liebsch M; Herzler M
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004; 15(5-6):359-66. PubMed ID: 15669695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. European Chemicals Agency dossier submissions as an experimental data source: refinement of a fish toxicity model for predicting acute LC50 values.
    Austin T; Denoyelle M; Chaudry A; Stradling S; Eadsforth C
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2015 Feb; 34(2):369-78. PubMed ID: 25470737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. In silico assessment of genotoxicity. Combinations of sensitive structural alerts minimize false negative predictions for all genotoxicity endpoints and can single out chemicals for which experimentation can be avoided.
    Benigni R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2021 Nov; 126():105042. PubMed ID: 34506881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Perspective of predictive toxicity assessment of in vivo repeated dose toxicity using structural activity relationship].
    Ono A
    Kokuritsu Iyakuhin Shokuhin Eisei Kenkyusho Hokoku; 2010; (128):44-9. PubMed ID: 21381395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Classification of baseline toxicants for QSAR predictions to replace fish acute toxicity studies.
    Nendza M; Müller M; Wenzel A
    Environ Sci Process Impacts; 2017 Mar; 19(3):429-437. PubMed ID: 28165522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. QSARs in ecotoxicological risk assessment.
    de Roode D; Hoekzema C; de Vries-Buitenweg S; van de Waart B; van der Hoeven J
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Jun; 45(1):24-35. PubMed ID: 16529851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Predicting the mutagenic potential of chemicals in tobacco products using
    Goel R; Valerio LG
    Toxicol Mech Methods; 2020 Nov; 30(9):672-678. PubMed ID: 32752976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparative PBT screening using (Q)SAR tools within REACH legislation.
    Zachary M; Greenway GM
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2009; 20(1-2):145-57. PubMed ID: 19343589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Global (Q)SARs for skin sensitisation: assessment against OECD principles.
    Roberts DW; Aptula AO; Cronin MT; Hulzebos E; Patlewicz G
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2007; 18(3-4):343-65. PubMed ID: 17514575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quantitative structure-activity relationships for predicting potential ecological hazard of organic chemicals for use in regulatory risk assessments.
    Comber MH; Walker JD; Watts C; Hermens J
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2003 Aug; 22(8):1822-8. PubMed ID: 12924581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Improving the applicability of (Q)SARs for percutaneous penetration in regulatory risk assessment.
    Bouwman T; Cronin MT; Bessems JG; van de Sandt JJ
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 2008 Apr; 27(4):269-76. PubMed ID: 18684796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.