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.
6. Nonlinearity and thresholds in dose-response relationships for carcinogenicity due to sampling variation, logarithmic dose scaling, or small differences in individual susceptibility. Lutz WK; Gaylor DW; Conolly RB; Lutz RW Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2005 Sep; 207(2 Suppl):565-9. PubMed ID: 15982698 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Calabrese EJ; Baldwin LA Toxicol Sci; 2003 Feb; 71(2):246-50. PubMed ID: 12563110 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Evolution of industrial toxicology toward vanishing doses and the human genome]. Colombi A; Buratti M; Rubino FM; Giampiccolo R; Pulvirenti S; Brambilla G Med Lav; 2003; 94(1):69-82. PubMed ID: 12768958 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Differences in individual susceptibility to toxic effects of chemicals determine the dose-response relationship and consequences of setting exposure standards. Lutz WK Toxicol Lett; 2002 Feb; 126(3):155-8. PubMed ID: 11814700 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biological significance of DNA adducts investigated by simultaneous analysis of different endpoints of genotoxicity in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells treated with methyl methanesulfonate. Brink A; Schulz B; Stopper H; Lutz WK Mutat Res; 2007 Dec; 625(1-2):94-101. PubMed ID: 17586535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Some implications of linear-quadratic-linear radiation dose-response with regard to hypofractionation. Astrahan M Med Phys; 2008 Sep; 35(9):4161-72. PubMed ID: 18841869 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Incorporating additional biological phenomena into two-stage cancer models. Sielken RL; Bretzlaff RS; Stevenson DE Prog Clin Biol Res; 1994; 387():237-60. PubMed ID: 7972250 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints. Sand S; von Rosen D; Victorin K; Filipsson AF Toxicol Sci; 2006 Mar; 90(1):241-51. PubMed ID: 16322076 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The analysis of dose-response curve from bioassays with quantal response: Deterministic or statistical approaches? Mougabure-Cueto G; Sfara V Toxicol Lett; 2016 Apr; 248():46-51. PubMed ID: 26952004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biologically effective dose-response relationship for breast cancer treated by conservative surgery and postoperative radiotherapy. Plataniotis GA; Dale RG Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2009 Oct; 75(2):512-7. PubMed ID: 19625139 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of infusion rate on thiopental dose-response relationships. Assessment of a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model. Gentry WB; Krejcie TC; Henthorn TK; Shanks CA; Howard KA; Gupta DK; Avram MJ Anesthesiology; 1994 Aug; 81(2):316-24; discussion 25A. PubMed ID: 8053580 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biological bases for cancer dose-response extrapolation procedures. Wilson JD Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Jan; 90():293-6. PubMed ID: 2050075 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Threshold analysis of selected dose-response data for endocrine active chemicals. Blair RM; Fang H; Gaylor D; Sheehan DM APMIS; 2001 Mar; 109(3):198-208. PubMed ID: 11430497 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]