218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16891049)
1. Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe.
Barlow S; Renwick AG; Kleiner J; Bridges JW; Busk L; Dybing E; Edler L; Eisenbrand G; Fink-Gremmels J; Knaap A; Kroes R; Liem D; Müller DJ; Page S; Rolland V; Schlatter J; Tritscher A; Tueting W; Würtzen G
Food Chem Toxicol; 2006 Oct; 44(10):1636-50. PubMed ID: 16891049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Application of the Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic.
Benford D; Bolger PM; Carthew P; Coulet M; DiNovi M; Leblanc JC; Renwick AG; Setzer W; Schlatter J; Smith B; Slob W; Williams G; Wildemann T
Food Chem Toxicol; 2010 Jan; 48 Suppl 1():S2-24. PubMed ID: 20113851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Approaches to the risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in food: a critical appraisal.
O'Brien J; Renwick AG; Constable A; Dybing E; Müller DJ; Schlatter J; Slob W; Tueting W; van Benthem J; Williams GM; Wolfreys A
Food Chem Toxicol; 2006 Oct; 44(10):1613-35. PubMed ID: 16887251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The influence of thresholds on the risk assessment of carcinogens in food.
Pratt I; Barlow S; Kleiner J; Larsen JC
Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):113-7. PubMed ID: 19442758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Towards a harmonized approach for risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in the European Union.
Crebelli R
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2006; 42(2):127-31. PubMed ID: 17033132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations.
Dearfield KL; Gollapudi BB; Bemis JC; Benz RD; Douglas GR; Elespuru RK; Johnson GE; Kirkland DJ; LeBaron MJ; Li AP; Marchetti F; Pottenger LH; Rorije E; Tanir JY; Thybaud V; van Benthem J; Yauk CL; Zeiger E; Luijten M
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2017 Jun; 58(5):264-283. PubMed ID: 27650663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Risk assessment of carcinogens in food.
Barlow S; Schlatter J
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2010 Mar; 243(2):180-90. PubMed ID: 19909764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The use of dose-response data in a margin of exposure approach to carcinogenic risk assessment for genotoxic chemicals in food.
Benford DJ
Mutagenesis; 2016 May; 31(3):329-31. PubMed ID: 26297741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Risk assessment of dietary exposures to compounds that are genotoxic and carcinogenic--an overview.
Dybing E; O'Brien J; Renwick AG; Sanner T
Toxicol Lett; 2008 Aug; 180(2):110-7. PubMed ID: 18584977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective.
Bolt HM; Foth H; Hengstler JG; Degen GH
Toxicol Lett; 2004 Jun; 151(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 15177638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Selection of appropriate tumour data sets for Benchmark Dose Modelling (BMD) and derivation of a Margin of Exposure (MoE) for substances that are genotoxic and carcinogenic: considerations of biological relevance of tumour type, data quality and uncertainty assessment.
Edler L; Hart A; Greaves P; Carthew P; Coulet M; Boobis A; Williams GM; Smith B
Food Chem Toxicol; 2014 Aug; 70():264-89. PubMed ID: 24176677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.
Cohen SM; Robinson D; MacDonald J
Toxicol Sci; 2001 Nov; 64(1):14-9. PubMed ID: 11606797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. SOS chromotest results in a broader context: empirical relationships between genotoxic potency, mutagenic potency, and carcinogenic potency.
White PA; Rasmussen JB
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 27(4):270-305. PubMed ID: 8665872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Interpretation of the margin of exposure for genotoxic carcinogens - elicitation of expert knowledge about the form of the dose response curve at human relevant exposures.
Boobis A; Flari V; Gosling JP; Hart A; Craig P; Rushton L; Idahosa-Taylor E
Food Chem Toxicol; 2013 Jul; 57():106-18. PubMed ID: 23507349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Application of the margin of exposure (MoE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Preface.
Expert Group Members
Food Chem Toxicol; 2010 Jan; 48 Suppl 1():S1. PubMed ID: 20113849
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of carcinogenic and in vivo genotoxic potency estimates.
Sanner T; Dybing E
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005 Feb; 96(2):131-9. PubMed ID: 15679476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A proposed framework for assessing risk from less-than-lifetime exposures to carcinogens.
Felter SP; Conolly RB; Bercu JP; Bolger PM; Boobis AR; Bos PM; Carthew P; Doerrer NG; Goodman JI; Harrouk WA; Kirkland DJ; Lau SS; Llewellyn GC; Preston RJ; Schoeny R; Schnatter AR; Tritscher A; van Velsen F; Williams GM
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2011 Jul; 41(6):507-44. PubMed ID: 21591905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Scientific analysis of the proposed uses of the T25 dose descriptor in chemical carcinogen regulation.
Roberts RA; Crump KS; Lutz WK; Wiegand HJ; Williams GM; Harrison PT; Purchase IF
Arch Toxicol; 2001 Nov; 75(9):507-12. PubMed ID: 11760810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
