198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15027998)
1. A comparison of three methods for calculating confidence intervals for the benchmark dose.
Moerbeek M; Piersma AH; Slob W
Risk Anal; 2004 Feb; 24(1):31-40. PubMed ID: 15027998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Bootstrap estimation of benchmark doses and confidence limits with clustered quantal data.
Zhu Y; Wang T; Jelsovsky JZ
Risk Anal; 2007 Apr; 27(2):447-65. PubMed ID: 17511711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Quantalization of continuous data for benchmark dose estimation.
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1996 Dec; 24(3):246-50. PubMed ID: 8975754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Confidence intervals for the 50 per cent response dose.
Faraggi D; Izikson P; Reiser B
Stat Med; 2003 Jun; 22(12):1977-88. PubMed ID: 12802816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The benchmark dose method--review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment.
Filipsson AF; Sand S; Nilsson J; Victorin K
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2003; 33(5):505-42. PubMed ID: 14594105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A benchmark dose analysis for sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) using dichotomous toxicity data.
Foronda NM; Fowles J; Smith N; Taylor M; Temple W
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Feb; 47(1):84-9. PubMed ID: 16965845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment.
Gaylor D; Ryan L; Krewski D; Zhu Y
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Oct; 28(2):150-64. PubMed ID: 9927564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment.
Sand S; Victorin K; Filipsson AF
J Appl Toxicol; 2008 May; 28(4):405-21. PubMed ID: 17879232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Profile likelihood-based confidence intervals using Monte Carlo integration for population pharmacokinetic parameters.
Funatogawa T; Funatogawa I; Yafune A
J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(2):193-205. PubMed ID: 16584067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Multiplicity-adjusted inferences in risk assessment: benchmark analysis with quantal response data.
Nitcheva DK; Piegorsch WW; West RW; Kodell RL
Biometrics; 2005 Mar; 61(1):277-86. PubMed ID: 15737104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Alternatives for a risk assessment on chronic noncancer effects from oral exposure to trichloroethylene.
Barton HA; Das S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1996 Dec; 24(3):269-85. PubMed ID: 8975757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A parametric model for detecting hormetic effects in developmental toxicity studies.
Hunt DL; Bowman D
Risk Anal; 2004 Feb; 24(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 15028001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A simulation study of quantitative risk assessment for bivariate continuous outcomes.
Yu ZF; Catalano PJ
Risk Anal; 2008 Oct; 28(5):1415-30. PubMed ID: 18631306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Deriving a data-based interspecies assessment factor using the NOAEL and the benchmark dose approach.
Bokkers BG; Slob W
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007 Jun; 37(5):355-73. PubMed ID: 17612951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Bootstrap confidence intervals for relative risk parameters in affected-sib-pair data.
Cordell HJ; Carpenter JR
Genet Epidemiol; 2000 Feb; 18(2):157-72. PubMed ID: 10642428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessing the uncertainty in QUANTEC's dose-response relation of lung and spinal cord with a bootstrap analysis.
Wedenberg M
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2013 Nov; 87(4):795-801. PubMed ID: 23953634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Using the bootstrap to improve estimation and confidence intervals for regression coefficients selected using backwards variable elimination.
Austin PC
Stat Med; 2008 Jul; 27(17):3286-300. PubMed ID: 17940997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Determining the error of dose estimates and minimum and maximum acceptable concentrations from assays with nonlinear dose-response curves.
Gottschalk PG; Dunn JR
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2005 Dec; 80(3):204-15. PubMed ID: 16256244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A probabilistic framework for non-cancer risk assessment.
Chen JJ; Moon H; Kodell RL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Jun; 48(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 17166641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Uncertainty of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A comparison of Fieller and bootstrap confidence intervals.
Severens JL; De Boo TM; Konst EM
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1999; 15(3):608-14. PubMed ID: 10874387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
