547 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19766156)
21. 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]
22. Modelling acute oral mammalian toxicity. 1. Definition of a quantifiable baseline effect.
Koleva YK; Cronin MT; Madden JC; Schwöbel JA
Toxicol In Vitro; 2011 Oct; 25(7):1281-93. PubMed ID: 21557997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Virtual tissues in toxicology.
Shah I; Wambaugh J
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2010 Feb; 13(2-4):314-28. PubMed ID: 20574905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. In silico prediction of harmful effects triggered by drugs and chemicals.
Vedani A; Dobler M; Lill MA
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2005 Sep; 207(2 Suppl):398-407. PubMed ID: 16045954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Metabolomics: a tool for early detection of toxicological effects and an opportunity for biology based grouping of chemicals-from QSAR to QBAR.
van Ravenzwaay B; Herold M; Kamp H; Kapp MD; Fabian E; Looser R; Krennrich G; Mellert W; Prokoudine A; Strauss V; Walk T; Wiemer J
Mutat Res; 2012 Aug; 746(2):144-50. PubMed ID: 22305969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. How omics technologies can contribute to the '3R' principles by introducing new strategies in animal testing.
Kroeger M
Trends Biotechnol; 2006 Aug; 24(8):343-6. PubMed ID: 16782220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Precision of estimates of an ADI (or TDI or PTWI).
Speijers GJ
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1999 Oct; 30(2 Pt 2):S87-93. PubMed ID: 10597619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation.
Höfer T; Gerner I; Gundert-Remy U; Liebsch M; Schulte A; Spielmann H; Vogel R; Wettig K
Arch Toxicol; 2004 Oct; 78(10):549-64. PubMed ID: 15170526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Development of an in vitro test battery for assessing chemical effects on bovine germ cells under the ReProTect umbrella.
Lazzari G; Tessaro I; Crotti G; Galli C; Hoffmann S; Bremer S; Pellizzer C
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2008 Dec; 233(3):360-70. PubMed ID: 18835402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Correlation of chemical structure with reproductive and developmental toxicity as it relates to the use of the threshold of toxicological concern.
Laufersweiler MC; Gadagbui B; Baskerville-Abraham IM; Maier A; Willis A; Scialli AR; Carr GJ; Felter SP; Blackburn K; Daston G
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2012 Feb; 62(1):160-82. PubMed ID: 22019814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. In vitro dermal absorption rate testing of certain chemicals of interest to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration: summary and evaluation of USEPA's mandated testing.
Fasano WJ; McDougal JN
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Jul; 51(2):181-94. PubMed ID: 18501488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Directions in QSAR modeling for regulatory uses in OECD member countries, EU and in Russia.
Fjodorova N; Novich M; Vrachko M; Smirnov V; Kharchevnikova N; Zholdakova Z; Novikov S; Skvortsova N; Filimonov D; Poroikov V; Benfenati E
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2008; 26(2):201-36. PubMed ID: 18569330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 4.5 Evidence-based individual toxicological analysis.
Guzelian P
Hum Exp Toxicol; 2009 Feb; 28(2-3):136-8. PubMed ID: 19713380
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. The long and winding road of progress in the use of in vitro data for risk assessment purposes: From "carnation test" to integrated testing strategies.
Blaauboer BJ
Toxicology; 2015 Jun; 332():4-7. PubMed ID: 24769060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Using chemical categories to fill data gaps in hazard assessment.
van Leeuwen K; Schultz TW; Henry T; Diderich B; Veith GD
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2009; 20(3-4):207-20. PubMed ID: 19544189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Chronic oral LOAEL prediction by using a commercially available computational QSAR tool.
Rupp B; Appel KE; Gundert-Remy U
Arch Toxicol; 2010 Sep; 84(9):681-8. PubMed ID: 20224925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Counter propagation artificial neural network categorical models for prediction of carcinogenicity for non-congeneric chemicals.
Fjodorova N; Vracko M; Jezierska A; Novic M
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Jan; 21(1):57-75. PubMed ID: 20373214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Is computational toxicology withering on the vine?
Combes RD
Arch Toxicol; 2010 Apr; 84(4):333-6. PubMed ID: 20204328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Informing mechanistic toxicology with computational molecular models.
Goldsmith MR; Peterson SD; Chang DT; Transue TR; Tornero-Velez R; Tan YM; Dary CC
Methods Mol Biol; 2012; 929():139-65. PubMed ID: 23007429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. QSAR and chemometric approaches for setting water quality objectives for dangerous chemicals.
Vighi M; Gramatica P; Consolaro F; Todeschini R
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2001 Jul; 49(3):206-20. PubMed ID: 11440473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
