BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

263 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19810288)

  • 21. Radiological risk assessment of Capstone depleted uranium aerosols.
    Hahn FF; Roszell LE; Daxon EG; Guilmette RA; Parkhurst MA
    Health Phys; 2009 Mar; 96(3):352-62. PubMed ID: 19204491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Risk assessment after internal exposure to black sand from Camargue: uptake and prospective dose calculation.
    Frelon S; Chazel V; Tourlonias E; Blanchardon E; Bouisset P; Pourcelot L; Paquet F
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2007; 127(1-4):64-7. PubMed ID: 17611198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Concept of optimisation of the radiation protection system in the nuclear sector: management of individual cancer risks and providing targeted health care.
    Ivanov VK; Tsyb AF; Agapov AM; Panfilov AP; Kaidalov OV; Gorski AI; Maksioutov MA; Suspitsin YV; Vaizer VI
    J Radiol Prot; 2006 Dec; 26(4):361-74. PubMed ID: 17146121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comments on "Impact of tritium around EDF nuclear power plants".
    Little MP; Lambert BE
    J Radiol Prot; 2009 Sep; 29(3):452-3; author reply 453-4. PubMed ID: 19810285
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Two principal considerations are needed after low doses of ionizing radiation.
    Feinendegen LE; Paretzke H; Neumann RD
    Radiat Res; 2008 Feb; 169(2):247-8. PubMed ID: 18220467
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Economic and policy considerations drive the LNT debate.
    Mossman KL
    Radiat Res; 2008 Feb; 169(2):245; author reply 246-7. PubMed ID: 18220464
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Lessons from Chernobyl and prognosis for Fukushima: radiological consequences.
    Ivanov VK
    J Radiol Prot; 2012 Mar; 32(1):N55-8. PubMed ID: 22394610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The 'Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken' study: results put into perspective.
    Grosche B
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 132(2):198-201. PubMed ID: 18936089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Assessment of environmental exposures from agricultural pesticides in childhood leukaemia studies: challenges and opportunities.
    Ritz B; Rull RP
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 132(2):148-55. PubMed ID: 18930927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The selection of parameter values in studies of environmental radiological impacts.
    Thorne MC
    J Radiol Prot; 2013 Jun; 33(2):N1-7. PubMed ID: 23481090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Leukaemia following childhood radiation exposure in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and in medically exposed groups.
    Little MP
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 132(2):156-65. PubMed ID: 18936088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Dosimetry for epidemiological studies: learning from the past, looking to the future.
    Simon SL; Bouville A; Kleinerman R; Ron E
    Radiat Res; 2006 Jul; 166(1 Pt 2):313-8. PubMed ID: 16808617
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Dosimetric models used in the Alpha-Risk project to quantify exposure of uranium miners to radon gas and its progeny.
    Marsh JW; Bessa Y; Birchall A; Blanchardon E; Hofmann W; Nosske D; Tomasek L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 130(1):101-6. PubMed ID: 18456899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Exposure to electromagnetic fields and the risk of childhood leukaemia: a review.
    Schüz J; Ahlbom A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 132(2):202-11. PubMed ID: 18927133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Uncertainties in radioecological assessment models--their nature and approaches to reduce them.
    Kirchner G; Steiner M
    Appl Radiat Isot; 2008 Nov; 66(11):1750-3. PubMed ID: 18513981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do.
    Little MP; Wakeford R; Tawn EJ; Bouffler SD; Berrington de Gonzalez A
    Radiology; 2009 Apr; 251(1):6-12. PubMed ID: 19332841
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Using Microsoft Excel to compute the 5% overall site X/Q value and the 95th percentile of the distribution of doses to the nearest maximally exposed offsite individual (MEOI).
    Vickers LD
    Health Phys; 2010 May; 98 Suppl 2():S48-55. PubMed ID: 20386192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Impact of tritium around EDF nuclear power plants.
    Le Guen B
    J Radiol Prot; 2009 Jun; 29(2):163-73. PubMed ID: 19454788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Uncertainties in studies of low statistical power.
    Boice JD
    J Radiol Prot; 2010 Jun; 30(2):115-20. PubMed ID: 20548136
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Bone cancer risk of (239)pu in humans derived from animal models.
    Bijwaard H; Dekkers F
    Radiat Res; 2007 Nov; 168(5):582-92. PubMed ID: 17973546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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