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 *

208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15645441)

  • 1. Mechanistic data and cancer risk assessment: the need for quantitative molecular endpoints.
    Preston RJ
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2005; 45(2-3):214-21. PubMed ID: 15645441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cancer risk assessment for 1,3-butadiene: data integration opportunities.
    Preston RJ
    Chem Biol Interact; 2007 Mar; 166(1-3):150-5. PubMed ID: 16647696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reducing uncertainty in risk assessment by using specific knowledge to replace default options.
    McClellan RO
    Drug Metab Rev; 1996; 28(1-2):149-79. PubMed ID: 8744594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Application of transcriptional benchmark dose values in quantitative cancer and noncancer risk assessment.
    Thomas RS; Clewell HJ; Allen BC; Wesselkamper SC; Wang NC; Lambert JC; Hess-Wilson JK; Zhao QJ; Andersen ME
    Toxicol Sci; 2011 Mar; 120(1):194-205. PubMed ID: 21097997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Analysis of in vivo mutation data can inform cancer risk assessment.
    Moore MM; Heflich RH; Haber LT; Allen BC; Shipp AM; Kodell RL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Jul; 51(2):151-61. PubMed ID: 18321622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cancer risk assessment: importance of identifying mechanisms of action.
    Bull RJ
    J Am Water Works Assoc; 1990 Oct; 82(10):57-60. PubMed ID: 11538297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Quantitation of molecular endpoints for the dose-response component of cancer risk assessment.
    Preston RJ
    Toxicol Pathol; 2002; 30(1):112-6. PubMed ID: 11890462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Approaches to cancer assessment in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System.
    Gehlhaus MW; Gift JS; Hogan KA; Kopylev L; Schlosser PM; Kadry AR
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2011 Jul; 254(2):170-80. PubMed ID: 21034767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantitative approaches to human risk assessment for noncancer health effects.
    Kimmel CA
    Neurotoxicology; 1990; 11(2):189-98. PubMed ID: 2234540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A classification framework and practical guidance for establishing a mode of action for chemical carcinogens.
    Butterworth BE
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Jun; 45(1):9-23. PubMed ID: 16530901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Epigenetic processes and cancer risk assessment.
    Preston RJ
    Mutat Res; 2007 Mar; 616(1-2):7-10. PubMed ID: 17147955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma.
    Berman DW; Crump KS
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2008; 38 Suppl 1():1-47. PubMed ID: 18671157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Carcinogenic risks of dioxin: mechanistic considerations.
    Schwarz M; Appel KE
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Oct; 43(1):19-34. PubMed ID: 16054739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quantitative estimates of risk for noncancer endpoints.
    Clewell HJ; Crump KS
    Risk Anal; 2005 Apr; 25(2):285-9. PubMed ID: 15876204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
    EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of cancer slope factors using different statistical approaches.
    Subramaniam RP; White P; Cogliano VJ
    Risk Anal; 2006 Jun; 26(3):825-30. PubMed ID: 16834636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Carcinogen risk assessment in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Albert RE
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 1994; 24(1):75-85. PubMed ID: 8172652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Animal carcinogenicity studies: implications for the REACH system.
    Knight A; Bailey J; Balcombe J
    Altern Lab Anim; 2006 Mar; 34 Suppl 1():139-47. PubMed ID: 16555967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Risk assessment: the default conservatism controversy.
    Barnard RC
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Jun; 21(3):431-8. PubMed ID: 7480897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.