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 *

265 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18691758)

  • 41. [Adverse effects as a human toxicological problem].
    Schimmelpfennig W
    Schriftenr Ver Wasser Boden Lufthyg; 1999; 103():108-38. PubMed ID: 10719708
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Testing REACH draft technical guidance notes for conducting chemical safety assessments-the experience of a downstream user of a preparation.
    Gade AL; Ovrebø S; Hylland K
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Jul; 51(2):168-80. PubMed ID: 18479796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. A Bayesian approach to probabilistic risk assessment in municipal playgrounds.
    Iribarren I; Chacón E; De Miguel E
    Arch Environ Contam Toxicol; 2009 Jan; 56(1):165-72. PubMed ID: 18427709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Systematic Consideration of Parameter Uncertainty and Variability in Probabilistic Species Sensitivity Distributions.
    Wigger H; Kawecki D; Nowack B; Adam V
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2020 Mar; 16(2):211-222. PubMed ID: 31535755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Application of a weight of evidence approach to assessing discordant sensitisation datasets: implications for REACH.
    Basketter D; Ball N; Cagen S; Carrillo JC; Certa H; Eigler D; Garcia C; Esch H; Graham C; Haux C; Kreiling R; Mehling A
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Oct; 55(1):90-6. PubMed ID: 19523501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Methods for assessing uncertainty in fundamental assumptions and associated models for cancer risk assessment.
    Small MJ
    Risk Anal; 2008 Oct; 28(5):1289-308. PubMed ID: 18844862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. ISTA13--international interlaboratory comparative evaluation of microbial assay for risk assessment (MARA).
    Wadhia K
    Environ Toxicol; 2008 Oct; 23(5):626-33. PubMed ID: 18712790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Time to get off the fence: the need for definitive international guidance on statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data.
    van Dam RA; Harford AJ; Warne MS
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2012 Apr; 8(2):242-5. PubMed ID: 22308052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Relative robustness of NOEC and ECx against large uncertainties in data.
    Tanaka Y; Nakamura K; Yokomizo H
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0206901. PubMed ID: 30485303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Environmental risk assessment of zinc in European freshwaters: a critical appraisal.
    Van Sprang PA; Verdonck FA; Van Assche F; Regoli L; De Schamphelaere KA
    Sci Total Environ; 2009 Oct; 407(20):5373-91. PubMed ID: 19631966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Comparing ecotoxicological effect concentrations of chemicals established in multi-species vs. single-species toxicity test systems.
    De Laender F; De Schamphelaere KA; Vanrolleghem PA; Janssen CR
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2009 Feb; 72(2):310-5. PubMed ID: 18774172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Better bootstrap estimation of hazardous concentration thresholds for aquatic assemblages.
    Grist EP; Leung KM; Wheeler JR; Crane M
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2002 Jul; 21(7):1515-24. PubMed ID: 12109754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Field surveys can support ecological risk assessment.
    Iwasaki Y; Kagaya T; Ormerod SJ
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2013 Jan; 9(1):171-2. PubMed ID: 23281239
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Human health risk assessment database, "the NHSRC toxicity value database": supporting the risk assessment process at US EPA's National Homeland Security Research Center.
    Moudgal CJ; Garrahan K; Brady-Roberts E; Gavrelis N; Arbogast M; Dun S
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2008 Nov; 233(1):25-33. PubMed ID: 18692516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Assessment factors--applications in health risk assessment of chemicals.
    Falk-Filipsson A; Hanberg A; Victorin K; Warholm M; Wallén M
    Environ Res; 2007 May; 104(1):108-27. PubMed ID: 17166493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The impact of an additional ecotoxicity test on ecological quality standards.
    Henning-de Jong I; Ragas AM; Hendriks HW; Huijbregts MA; Posthuma L; Wintersen A; Jan Hendriks A
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2009 Nov; 72(8):2037-45. PubMed ID: 19748120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. A novel method to prevent secondary exposure of medical and rescue personnel to toxic materials under biochemical hazard conditions using microwave radar and infrared thermography.
    Matsui T; Hagisawa K; Ishizuka T; Takase B; Ishihara M; Kikuchi M
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2004 Dec; 51(12):2184-8. PubMed ID: 15605866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Estimating the 5-percentile of the species sensitivity distributions without any assumptions about the distribution.
    van der Hoeven N
    Ecotoxicology; 2001 Feb; 10(1):25-34. PubMed ID: 11227815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. MOSAIC_SSD: a new web tool for species sensitivity distribution to include censored data by maximum likelihood.
    Kon Kam King G; Veber P; Charles S; Delignette-Muller ML
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2014 Sep; 33(9):2133-9. PubMed ID: 24863265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Extending the quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects.
    Campedel M; Cozzani V; Garcia-Agreda A; Salzano E
    Risk Anal; 2008 Oct; 28(5):1231-46. PubMed ID: 18657068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.