755 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18240158)
1. An evaluation of the mode of action framework for mutagenic carcinogens case study: Cyclophosphamide.
McCarroll N; Keshava N; Cimino M; Chu M; Dearfield K; Keshava C; Kligerman A; Owen R; Protzel A; Putzrath R; Schoeny R
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2008 Mar; 49(2):117-31. PubMed ID: 18240158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An evaluation of the mode of action framework for mutagenic carcinogens case study II: chromium (VI).
McCarroll N; Keshava N; Chen J; Akerman G; Kligerman A; Rinde E
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2010 Mar; 51(2):89-111. PubMed ID: 19708067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Use of genetic toxicology information for risk assessment.
Dearfield KL; Moore MM
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2005 Dec; 46(4):236-45. PubMed ID: 16258925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Evaluating genotoxicity data to identify a mode of action and its application in estimating cancer risk at low doses: A case study involving carbon tetrachloride.
Eastmond DA
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2008 Mar; 49(2):132-41. PubMed ID: 18213651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing.
Thybaud V; Aardema M; Clements J; Dearfield K; Galloway S; Hayashi M; Jacobson-Kram D; Kirkland D; MacGregor JT; Marzin D; Ohyama W; Schuler M; Suzuki H; Zeiger E;
Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):41-58. PubMed ID: 17126066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans.
Boobis AR; Cohen SM; Dellarco V; McGregor D; Meek ME; Vickers C; Willcocks D; Farland W
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2006; 36(10):781-92. PubMed ID: 17118728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Chloroform mode of action: implications for cancer risk assessment.
Golden RJ; Holm SE; Robinson DE; Julkunen PH; Reese EA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1997 Oct; 26(2):142-55. PubMed ID: 9356278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mutagenicity of bromate: implications for cancer risk assessment.
Moore MM; Chen T
Toxicology; 2006 Apr; 221(2-3):190-6. PubMed ID: 16460860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An adjustment factor for mode-of-action uncertainty with dual-mode carcinogens: the case of naphthalene-induced nasal tumors in rats.
Bogen KT
Risk Anal; 2008 Aug; 28(4):1033-51. PubMed ID: 18564993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde and nasal cytotoxicity: case study within the context of the 2006 IPCS Human Framework for the Analysis of a cancer mode of action for humans.
McGregor D; Bolt H; Cogliano V; Richter-Reichhelm HB
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2006; 36(10):821-35. PubMed ID: 17118731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Environmental and chemical carcinogenesis.
Wogan GN; Hecht SS; Felton JS; Conney AH; Loeb LA
Semin Cancer Biol; 2004 Dec; 14(6):473-86. PubMed ID: 15489140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mode of action in relevance of rodent liver tumors to human cancer risk.
Holsapple MP; Pitot HC; Cohen SM; Boobis AR; Klaunig JE; Pastoor T; Dellarco VL; Dragan YP
Toxicol Sci; 2006 Jan; 89(1):51-6. PubMed ID: 16221960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Toxicogenomics and cancer risk assessment: a framework for key event analysis and dose-response assessment for nongenotoxic carcinogens.
Bercu JP; Jolly RA; Flagella KM; Baker TK; Romero P; Stevens JL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010 Dec; 58(3):369-81. PubMed ID: 20801182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Addressing nonlinearity in the exposure-response relationship for a genotoxic carcinogen: cancer potency estimates for ethylene oxide.
Kirman CR; Sweeney LM; Teta MJ; Sielken RL; Valdez-Flores C; Albertini RJ; Gargas ML
Risk Anal; 2004 Oct; 24(5):1165-83. PubMed ID: 15563286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Critical evaluation of the cancer risk of dibromochloropropane (DBCP).
Clark HA; Snedeker SM
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2005; 23(2):215-60. PubMed ID: 16291528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Arsenic-induced carcinogenesis--oxidative stress as a possible mode of action and future research needs for more biologically based risk assessment.
Kitchin KT; Conolly R
Chem Res Toxicol; 2010 Feb; 23(2):327-35. PubMed ID: 20035570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
