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 *

62 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1493367)

  • 1. Accelerated rodent bioassay predictive of chemical carcinogenesis.
    Iatropoulos MJ
    Exp Toxicol Pathol; 1992 Dec; 44(8):481-7. PubMed ID: 1493367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Design and evaluation of rodent carcinogenicity studies (bioassay).
    Usui T
    J Toxicol Sci; 1995 Sep; 20(4):457-8. PubMed ID: 8531240
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An enhanced 13-week bioassay: an alternative to the 2-year bioassay to screen for human carcinogenesis.
    Cohen SM
    Exp Toxicol Pathol; 2010 Sep; 62(5):497-502. PubMed ID: 19616417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Prediction of carcinogenicity from two versus four sex-species groups in the carcinogenic potency database.
    Gold LS; Slone TH
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1993 May; 39(1):143-57. PubMed ID: 8492327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. IFSTP guidelines for the design and interpretation of the chronic rodent carcinogenicity bioassay.
    Faccini JM; Butler WR; Friedmann JC; Hess R; Reznik GK; Ito N; Hayashi Y; Williams GM
    Exp Toxicol Pathol; 1992 Dec; 44(8):443-56. PubMed ID: 1493363
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison between rodent carcinogenicity test results of 44 chemicals and a number of predictive systems.
    Lewis DF
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Dec; 20(3 Pt 1):215-22. PubMed ID: 7724831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of transcriptomic and metabonomic technologies for identifying biomarkers predictive of two-year rodent cancer bioassays.
    Thomas RS; O'Connell TM; Pluta L; Wolfinger RD; Yang L; Page TJ
    Toxicol Sci; 2007 Mar; 96(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 17114358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Long- and medium-term carcinogenicity studies in animals and short-term genotoxicity tests.
    Feron VJ; Schwarz M; Hemminki K; Krewski D
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (131):103-29. PubMed ID: 10505295
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Prediction of non-genotoxic carcinogenesis in rats using changes in gene expression following acute dosing.
    Nioi P; Pardo ID; Sherratt PJ; Snyder RD
    Chem Biol Interact; 2008 Apr; 172(3):206-15. PubMed ID: 18328469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Historical review of the rodent bioassay and future directions.
    McConnell EE
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Feb; 21(1):38-43; discussion 81-6. PubMed ID: 7784634
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessment and validation of US EPA's OncoLogic® expert system and analysis of its modulating factors for structural alerts.
    Benigni R; Bossa C; Alivernini S; Colafranceschi M
    J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2012; 30(2):152-73. PubMed ID: 22690713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Rodent bladder tumors do not always predict for humans.
    Cohen SM; Lawson TA
    Cancer Lett; 1995 Jun; 93(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 7600547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The inhalation exposure of carbon tetrachloride promote rat liver carcinogenesis in a medium-term liver bioassay.
    Tsujimura K; Ichinose F; Hara T; Yamasaki K; Otsuka M; Fukushima S
    Toxicol Lett; 2008 Feb; 176(3):207-14. PubMed ID: 18221844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Characterizing and predicting carcinogenicity and mode of action using conventional and toxicogenomics methods.
    Waters MD; Jackson M; Lea I
    Mutat Res; 2010 Dec; 705(3):184-200. PubMed ID: 20399889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay: in silico methods, and the in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity assays.
    Benigni R; Bossa C; Tcheremenskaia O; Giuliani A
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2010 Jul; 6(7):809-19. PubMed ID: 20438313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Statistical issues in interpretation of chronic bioassay tests for carcinogenicity.
    Gart JJ; Chu KC; Tarone RE
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1979 Apr; 62(4):957-74. PubMed ID: 285297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Medium-term carcinogenicity bioassay.
    Della Porta G
    Jpn J Cancer Res; 1992 Aug; 83(8):inside front cover. PubMed ID: 1399815
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Predicting chemical carcinogenesis in rodents.
    Wachsman JT; Bristol DW; Spalding J; Shelby M; Tennant RW
    Environ Health Perspect; 1993 Oct; 101(5):444-5. PubMed ID: 8119256
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.