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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16092077)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. The relationship between the IC(50), toxic threshold, and the magnitude of stimulatory response in biphasic (hormetic) dose-responses.
    Nascarella MA; Calabrese EJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Aug; 54(3):229-33. PubMed ID: 19393280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Estimation bias using the beta-binomial distribution in teratology.
    Williams DA
    Biometrics; 1988 Mar; 44(1):305-9. PubMed ID: 3358995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Weighing the results of differing 'low dose' studies of the mouse prostate by Nagel, Cagen, and Ashby: quantification of experimental power and statistical results.
    Owens JW; Chaney JG
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Nov; 43(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 16140446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Estimating treatment efficacy over time: a logistic regression model for binary longitudinal outcomes.
    Choi L; Dominici F; Zeger SL; Ouyang P
    Stat Med; 2005 Sep; 24(18):2789-805. PubMed ID: 16134133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Investigating the effects of the fixed and varying dispersion parameters of Poisson-gamma models on empirical Bayes estimates.
    Lord D; Park PY
    Accid Anal Prev; 2008 Jul; 40(4):1441-57. PubMed ID: 18606278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Underreporting in traffic accident data, bias in parameters and the structure of injury severity models.
    Yamamoto T; Hashiji J; Shankar VN
    Accid Anal Prev; 2008 Jul; 40(4):1320-9. PubMed ID: 18606262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Evaluation and interpretation of maternal toxicity in Segment II studies: issues, some answers, and data needs.
    Rogers JM; Chernoff N; Keen CL; Daston GP
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2005 Sep; 207(2 Suppl):367-74. PubMed ID: 15982694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Parallel dose-response curves in combination experiments.
    Sühnel J
    Bull Math Biol; 1998 Mar; 60(2):197-213. PubMed ID: 9559575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Long-term survivor model with bivariate random effects: applications to bone marrow transplant and carcinoma study data.
    Lai X; Yau KK
    Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(27):5692-708. PubMed ID: 18712761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Final report of the safety assessment of Alcohol Denat., including SD Alcohol 3-A, SD Alcohol 30, SD Alcohol 39, SD Alcohol 39-B, SD Alcohol 39-C, SD Alcohol 40, SD Alcohol 40-B, and SD Alcohol 40-C, and the denaturants, Quassin, Brucine Sulfate/Brucine, and Denatonium Benzoate.
    Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel
    Int J Toxicol; 2008; 27 Suppl 1():1-43. PubMed ID: 18569160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Lyman-Kutcher-Burman NTCP model parameters for radiation pneumonitis and xerostomia based on combined analysis of published clinical data.
    Semenenko VA; Li XA
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Feb; 53(3):737-55. PubMed ID: 18199912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Struggles for equivalence: in vitro developmental toxicity model evolution in pharmaceuticals in 2006.
    Chapin R; Stedman D; Paquette J; Streck R; Kumpf S; Deng S
    Toxicol In Vitro; 2007 Dec; 21(8):1545-51. PubMed ID: 17137747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Synergistic combinations of anticonvulsant agents: what is the evidence from animal experiments?
    Jonker DM; Voskuyl RA; Danhof M
    Epilepsia; 2007 Mar; 48(3):412-34. PubMed ID: 17346245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Getting the dose-response wrong: why hormesis became marginalized and the threshold model accepted.
    Calabrese EJ
    Arch Toxicol; 2009 Mar; 83(3):227-47. PubMed ID: 19234688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Mathematical modeling of reproductive and developmental toxic effects for quantitative risk assessment.
    Kodell RL; Howe RB; Chen JJ; Gaylor DW
    Risk Anal; 1991 Dec; 11(4):583-90. PubMed ID: 1780500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Evaluation of developmental toxicity of amitraz in Sprague-Dawley rats.
    Kim JC; Shin JY; Yang YS; Shin DH; Moon CJ; Kim SH; Park SC; Kim YB; Kim HC; Chung MK
    Arch Environ Contam Toxicol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):137-44. PubMed ID: 17083001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Strengths and limitations of using repeat-dose toxicity studies to predict effects on fertility.
    Dent MP
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Aug; 48(3):241-58. PubMed ID: 17512650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Cure rate model with interval censored data.
    Kim YJ; Jhun M
    Stat Med; 2008 Jan; 27(1):3-14. PubMed ID: 17516589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Reproductive toxicity evaluation of a new camptothecin anticancer agent, CKD-602, in pregnant/lactating female rats and their offspring.
    Chung MK; Kim CY; Kim JC
    Cancer Chemother Pharmacol; 2007 Feb; 59(3):383-95. PubMed ID: 16896929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.