213 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]
