155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1620715)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Researchers exploring faster alternatives to 2-year test for carcinogenicity.
Schmidt C
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Feb; 98(4):228-30. PubMed ID: 16478737
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of reduced protocols for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals: report of a joint EPA/NIEHS workshop.
Lai DY; Baetcke KP; Vu VT; Cotruvo JA; Eustis SL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Apr; 19(2):183-201. PubMed ID: 8041916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of the toxicity forecasting capability of EPA's ToxCast Phase I data: can ToxCast in vitro assays predict carcinogenicity?
Benigni R
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2013; 31(3):201-12. PubMed ID: 24024519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of carcinogen hazard characterisation based on animal studies and epidemiology.
Sanner T; Dybing E
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005 Jan; 96(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 15667598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Use of 'secondary mechanism' in the regulation of carcinogens; a chronology.
Scheuplein RJ
Cancer Lett; 1995 Jun; 93(1):103-12. PubMed ID: 7600537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cancer risk assessment: historical perspectives, current issues, and future directions.
Velazquez SF; Schoeny R; Rice GE; Cogliano VJ
Drug Chem Toxicol; 1996 Aug; 19(3):161-85. PubMed ID: 8933022
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Synthetic risks, risk potency, and carcinogen regulation.
Viscusi WK; Hakes JK
J Policy Anal Manage; 1998; 17(1):52-73. PubMed ID: 10848157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of the carcinogenicity of 1,1-dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride).
Roberts SM; Jordan KE; Warren DA; Britt JK; James RC
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2002 Feb; 35(1):44-55. PubMed ID: 11846635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Health risk assessment.
Abelson PH
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1993 Apr; 17(2 Pt 1):219-23. PubMed ID: 8484029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Müller L; Makoto H
Mutat Res; 2006 Sep; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Are evaluations of carcinogenicity by various committees worth comparing?
Boffetta P; Saracci R; Vainio H; Wilbourn J; Tomatis L
Med Lav; 1993; 84(4):332-3. PubMed ID: 8255265
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. A measure of tumorigenic potency incorporating dose-response shape.
Meier KL; Bailer AJ; Portier CJ
Biometrics; 1993 Sep; 49(3):917-26. PubMed ID: 8241378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The weight of the evidence among group C carcinogens.
Engler R; Rinde E; Frick C; Quest J
Qual Assur; 1991 Oct; 1(1):51-69. PubMed ID: 1669970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
