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 *

275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19545196)

  • 41. Comparison of cancer slope factors using different statistical approaches.
    Subramaniam RP; White P; Cogliano VJ
    Risk Anal; 2006 Jun; 26(3):825-30. PubMed ID: 16834636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) tumor model: recent applications in low-dose exposures to tumor initiators and promoters.
    William DE; Bailey GS; Reddy A; Hendricks JD; Oganesian A; Orner GA; Pereira CB; Swenberg JA
    Toxicol Pathol; 2003; 31 Suppl():58-61. PubMed ID: 12597433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Ionizing radiation and cancer risk: evidence from epidemiology.
    Ron E
    Radiat Res; 1998 Nov; 150(5 Suppl):S30-41. PubMed ID: 9806607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Thresholds as a unifying theme in regulatory toxicology.
    Cheeseman MA
    Food Addit Contam; 2005 Oct; 22(10):900-6. PubMed ID: 16227175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Cyproterone acetate: a genotoxic carcinogen?
    Kasper P
    Pharmacol Toxicol; 2001 May; 88(5):223-31. PubMed ID: 11393581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. [Quantitative evaluation for risk assessment of neoplasms caused by exposure to chemical substances].
    Szymczak W
    Med Pr; 2000; 51(6):625-36. PubMed ID: 11288691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Use of threshold and mode of action in risk assessment.
    Crump KS
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2011 Sep; 41(8):637-50. PubMed ID: 21718086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Do dose response thresholds exist for genotoxic alkylating agents?
    Jenkins GJ; Doak SH; Johnson GE; Quick E; Waters EM; Parry JM
    Mutagenesis; 2005 Nov; 20(6):389-98. PubMed ID: 16135536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Strategy of the scientific committee on occupational exposure limits (SCOEL) in the derivation of occupational exposure limits for carcinogens and mutagens.
    Bolt HM; Huici-Montagud A
    Arch Toxicol; 2008 Jan; 82(1):61-4. PubMed ID: 18008062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Biological monitoring of carcinogens: current status and perspectives.
    Pavanello S; Lotti M
    Arch Toxicol; 2012 Apr; 86(4):535-41. PubMed ID: 22159923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Challenging dogma: thresholds for genotoxic carcinogens? The case of vinyl acetate.
    Hengstler JG; Bogdanffy MS; Bolt HM; Oesch F
    Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol; 2003; 43():485-520. PubMed ID: 12415124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Thresholds for carcinogens.
    Calabrese EJ; Priest ND; Kozumbo WJ
    Chem Biol Interact; 2021 May; 341():109464. PubMed ID: 33823170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Linear-No-Threshold Default Assumptions for Noncancer and Nongenotoxic Cancer Risks: A Mathematical and Biological Critique.
    Bogen KT
    Risk Anal; 2016 Mar; 36(3):589-604. PubMed ID: 26249816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. [A regulatory view on the article: Risk evaluation of carcinogens and their threshold levels, part I-III].
    Dieter HH; Konietzka R
    Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz; 2006 Sep; 49(9):921-5. PubMed ID: 16953360
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Human carcinogenic risk evaluation, part IV: assessment of human risk of cancer from chemical exposure using a global weight-of-evidence approach.
    MacDonald JS
    Toxicol Sci; 2004 Nov; 82(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 15187236
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Is current risk assessment of non-genotoxic carcinogens protective?
    Braakhuis HM; Slob W; Olthof ED; Wolterink G; Zwart EP; Gremmer ER; Rorije E; van Benthem J; Woutersen R; van der Laan JW; Luijten M
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2018 Jul; 48(6):500-511. PubMed ID: 29745287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The carcinogenicity debate on formaldehyde: How to derive safe exposure limits?
    Bolt HM; Degen GH; Hengstler JG
    Arch Toxicol; 2010 Jun; 84(6):421-2. PubMed ID: 20480361
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. Dose-dependence of chemical carcinogenicity: Biological mechanisms for thresholds and implications for risk assessment.
    Clewell RA; Thompson CM; Clewell HJ
    Chem Biol Interact; 2019 Mar; 301():112-127. PubMed ID: 30763550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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