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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15595902)

  • 1. Two-stage testing of safety: a statistical view.
    Hauschke D; Hothorn LA
    Altern Lab Anim; 2003 Jun; 31 Suppl 1():77-80. PubMed ID: 15595902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The role of control groups in mutagenicity studies: matching biological and statistical relevance.
    Hauschke D; Hothorn T; Schäfer J
    Altern Lab Anim; 2003 Jun; 31 Suppl 1():65-75. PubMed ID: 15595901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Proposed integrated decision-tree testing strategies for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity in relation to the EU REACH legislation.
    Combes R; Grindon C; Cronin MT; Roberts DW; Garrod J
    Altern Lab Anim; 2007 May; 35(2):267-87. PubMed ID: 17559315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dose-response and thresholds in mutagenicity studies: a statistical testing approach.
    Hothorn LA; Bretz F
    Altern Lab Anim; 2003 Jun; 31 Suppl 1():97-103. PubMed ID: 15595904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: genotoxicity. A COLIPA analysis.
    Pfuhler S; Kirst A; Aardema M; Banduhn N; Goebel C; Araki D; Costabel-Farkas M; Dufour E; Fautz R; Harvey J; Hewitt NJ; Hibatallah J; Carmichael P; Macfarlane M; Reisinger K; Rowland J; Schellauf F; Schepky A; Scheel J
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010; 57(2-3):315-24. PubMed ID: 20382194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Statistics of interlaboratory in vitro toxicological studies.
    Hothorn LA
    Altern Lab Anim; 2003 Jun; 31 Suppl 1():43-63. PubMed ID: 15595900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. How to assess the mutagenic potential of cosmetic products without animal tests?
    Speit G
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):108-12. PubMed ID: 19379833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The interaction of statistical significance, biology of dose-response and test design in the assessment of genotoxicity data.
    Mitchell ID
    Mutagenesis; 1987 Mar; 2(2):141-5. PubMed ID: 3331703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Regulatory Acceptance of Alternative Methods in the Development and Approval of Pharmaceuticals.
    Beken S; Kasper P; van der Laan JW
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 856():33-64. PubMed ID: 27671719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The way forward in reproductive/developmental toxicity testing.
    Spielmann H
    Altern Lab Anim; 2009 Dec; 37(6):641-56. PubMed ID: 20105000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results.
    Kirkland DJ; Aardema M; Banduhn N; Carmichael P; Fautz R; Meunier JR; Pfuhler S
    Mutagenesis; 2007 May; 22(3):161-75. PubMed ID: 17369606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reduction of use of animals in regulatory genotoxicity testing: Identification and implementation opportunities-Report from an ECVAM workshop.
    Pfuhler S; Kirkland D; Kasper P; Hayashi M; Vanparys P; Carmichael P; Dertinger S; Eastmond D; Elhajouji A; Krul C; Rothfuss A; Schoening G; Smith A; Speit G; Thomas C; van Benthem J; Corvi R
    Mutat Res; 2009; 680(1-2):31-42. PubMed ID: 19765670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Adaptive statistical analysis following sample size modification based on interim review of effect size.
    Hung HM; Cui L; Wang SJ; Lawrence J
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(4):693-706. PubMed ID: 16022173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. [In vitro methods and safety testing of chemicals].
    Louekari K; Salminen L; Tähti H
    Duodecim; 1998; 114(9):851-8. PubMed ID: 11524804
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Significance, Errors, Power, and Sample Size: The Blocking and Tackling of Statistics.
    Mascha EJ; Vetter TR
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Feb; 126(2):691-698. PubMed ID: 29346210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparing in vivo, in vitro and in silico methods and integrated strategies for chemical assessment: problems and prospects.
    Benfenati E; Gini G; Hoffmann S; Luttik R
    Altern Lab Anim; 2010 May; 38(2):153-66. PubMed ID: 20507186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving Probabilities of Correct Interim Decision in Population Enrichment Designs.
    Götte H; Donica M; Mordenti G
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(5):1020-38. PubMed ID: 24914474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Genotoxicty and mutagenicity.
    Maurici D; Aardema M; Corvi R; Kleber M; Krul C; Laurent C; Loprieno N; Pasanen M; Pfuhler S; Phillips B; Sabbioni E; Sanner T; Vanparys P
    Altern Lab Anim; 2005 Jul; 33 Suppl 1():117-30. PubMed ID: 16194145
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimal timing for interim analyses in clinical trials.
    Togo K; Iwasaki M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(5):1067-80. PubMed ID: 23957516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.