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 *

244 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19544189)

  • 21. On the number of EINECS compounds that can be covered by (Q)SAR models for acute toxicity.
    Zvinavashe E; Murk AJ; Rietjens IM
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Jan; 184(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 19041378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Predicting the hazardous dose of industrial chemicals in warm-blooded species using machine learning-based modelling approaches.
    Gupta S; Basant N; Singh KP
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2015 Jun; 26(6):479-98. PubMed ID: 26087353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances.
    Simon-Hettich B; Rothfuss A; Steger-Hartmann T
    Toxicology; 2006 Jul; 224(1-2):156-62. PubMed ID: 16707203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Hazard Evaluation Support System (HESS) for predicting repeated dose toxicity using toxicological categories.
    Sakuratani Y; Zhang HQ; Nishikawa S; Yamazaki K; Yamada T; Yamada J; Gerova K; Chankov G; Mekenyan O; Hayashi M
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2013; 24(5):351-63. PubMed ID: 23548036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The physicochemical basis of QSARs for baseline toxicity.
    Mackay D; Arnot JA; Petkova EP; Wallace KB; Call DJ; Brooke LT; Veith GD
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2009; 20(3-4):393-414. PubMed ID: 19544198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Validation of a QSAR model for acute toxicity.
    Pavan M; Netzeva TI; Worth AP
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2006 Apr; 17(2):147-71. PubMed ID: 16644555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. SIDS reprotoxicity screening test update: testing strategies and use.
    Gelbke HP; Fleig H; Meder M;
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2004 Apr; 39(2):81-6. PubMed ID: 15041141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Development of a QSAR for worst case estimates of acute toxicity of chemically reactive compounds.
    Freidig AP; Dekkers S; Verwei M; Zvinavashe E; Bessems JG; van de Sandt JJ
    Toxicol Lett; 2007 May; 170(3):214-22. PubMed ID: 17462838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Recent prevention strategies and occupational risk analysis: Control Banding and Sobane].
    Ghittori S; Ferrari M; Negri S; Serranti P; Sacco P; Biffi R; Imbriani M
    G Ital Med Lav Ergon; 2006; 28(1):30-43. PubMed ID: 16705887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for predicting and profiling the carcinogenic potential of chemicals.
    Mombelli E; Devillers J
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Oct; 21(7-8):731-52. PubMed ID: 21120759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Improving the applicability of (Q)SARs for percutaneous penetration in regulatory risk assessment.
    Bouwman T; Cronin MT; Bessems JG; van de Sandt JJ
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 2008 Apr; 27(4):269-76. PubMed ID: 18684796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Statistical evaluation of chronic toxicity data on aquatic organisms for the hazard identification: the chemicals toxicity distribution approach.
    González-Doncel M; Ortiz J; Izquierdo JJ; Martín B; Sánchez P; Tarazona JV
    Chemosphere; 2006 May; 63(5):835-44. PubMed ID: 16169042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Toxicological information on chemicals published in the Russian language: Contribution to REACH and 3Rs.
    Sihtmäe M; Dubourguier HC; Kahru A
    Toxicology; 2009 Jul; 262(1):27-37. PubMed ID: 19433131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling.
    Valerio LG; Arvidson KB; Chanderbhan RF; Contrera JF
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2007 Jul; 222(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 17482223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Promises and pitfalls of quantitative structure-activity relationship approaches for predicting metabolism and toxicity.
    Zvinavashe E; Murk AJ; Rietjens IM
    Chem Res Toxicol; 2008 Dec; 21(12):2229-36. PubMed ID: 19548346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A review of the electrophilic reaction chemistry involved in covalent protein binding relevant to toxicity.
    Enoch SJ; Ellison CM; Schultz TW; Cronin MT
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2011 Oct; 41(9):783-802. PubMed ID: 21809939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. On the nature, evolution and future of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in toxicology.
    Veith GD
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004; 15(5-6):323-30. PubMed ID: 15669692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A review of the status of alternative approaches to animal testing and the development of integrated testing strategies for assessing the toxicity of chemicals under REACH--a summary of a DEFRA-funded project conducted by Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME.
    Grindon C; Combes R; Cronin MT; Roberts DW; Garrod J
    Altern Lab Anim; 2006 Mar; 34 Suppl 1():149-58. PubMed ID: 16555968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Aquatic effects assessment: needs and tools.
    Marchini S
    Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2002; 38(2):119-29. PubMed ID: 12387134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Non-testing approaches under REACH--help or hindrance? Perspectives from a practitioner within industry.
    Patlewicz G; Chen MW; Bellin CA
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2011 Mar; 22(1-2):67-88. PubMed ID: 21391142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.