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.
2. Re: analysis of pharmaceutical experience with decades of rat carcinogenicity testing. Introduction to article by Sistare et al. Morton D; Alden CL Toxicol Pathol; 2011 Jun; 39(4):715. PubMed ID: 21666102 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Invited contribution: an objective approach to the development of short-term tests predictive of carcinogenicity. Rosenkranz HS; Ennever FK; Chankong V; Pet-Edwards J; Haimes YY Cell Biol Toxicol; 1986 Dec; 2(4):425-40. PubMed ID: 3077082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Highlights of International meeting on Alternative Methods of Carcinogenicity Testing, Leesburg, VA, November 1-3, 2000, Sponsored by the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute. Jollow DJ J Agromedicine; 2004; 9(2):427-9. PubMed ID: 19785235 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The use of genetically modified animals in carcinogenicity bioassays. Maronpot RR Toxicol Pathol; 2000; 28(3):450-3. PubMed ID: 10862565 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Case study of carcinogenicity by initiation-promotion model. Mutai M; Aoki T J Toxicol Sci; 1996 Dec; 21(5):489-92. PubMed ID: 9035060 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Dose selection for carcinogenicity studies of pharmaceuticals. Horii I J Toxicol Sci; 1995 Sep; 20(4):462-4. PubMed ID: 8531242 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Short-and medium-term carcinogenicity tests: simple initiation-promotion assay systems. Tsuda H; Park CB; Moore MA IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):203-49. PubMed ID: 10353389 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Further evaluation of COMPACT, the molecular orbital approach for the prospective safety evaluation of chemicals. Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV Mutat Res; 1998 Jan; 412(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 9508363 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Carcinogenesis. Testing times for the tests. Hay A Nature; 1991 Apr; 350(6319):555-6. PubMed ID: 2017254 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Detecting and predicting the activity of rodent carcinogens. Parry JM Mutagenesis; 1994 Jan; 9(1):3-5. PubMed ID: 7911554 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Animal studies in potency ranking of carcinogens in Norway. Sanner T; Dybing E; Hardeng S; Haug E; Ovrebø S Prog Clin Biol Res; 1992; 374():399-414. PubMed ID: 1620715 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Use of tests in yeasts and fungi in the detection and evaluation of carcinogens. Parry JM IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):471-85. PubMed ID: 10353399 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Value of rodent carcinogenesis bioassays. Ward JM Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2008 Jan; 226(2):212. PubMed ID: 18029286 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Toxicogenomics applied to in vitro carcinogenicity testing with Balb/c 3T3 cells revealed a gene signature predictive of chemical carcinogens. Rohrbeck A; Salinas G; Maaser K; Linge J; Salovaara S; Corvi R; Borlak J Toxicol Sci; 2010 Nov; 118(1):31-41. PubMed ID: 20713471 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Testing for carcinogens: shift from animals to automation gathers steam--slowly. Schmidt C J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jul; 101(13):910-2. PubMed ID: 19549960 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Use of non-mammalian species in bioassays for carcinogenicity. Bunton TE IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):151-84. PubMed ID: 10353387 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prolactin-induced mammary tumorigenesis is not a rodent-specific response. Harvey PW Toxicol Pathol; 2011 Oct; 39(6):1020-2. PubMed ID: 21971937 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection. Schafer KA; Sellers R; Barale-Thomas E Crit Rev Toxicol; 2008; 38(10):895-6; author reply 897-8. PubMed ID: 18791911 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]