370 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21094668)
1. A review of mammalian carcinogenicity study design and potential effects of alternate test procedures on the safety evaluation of food ingredients.
Hayes AW; Dayan AD; Hall WC; Kodell RL; Williams GM; Waddell WD; Slesinski RS; Kruger CL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Jun; 60(1 Suppl):S1-34. PubMed ID: 21094668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials
Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of reduced protocols for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals: report of a joint EPA/NIEHS workshop.
Lai DY; Baetcke KP; Vu VT; Cotruvo JA; Eustis SL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Apr; 19(2):183-201. PubMed ID: 8041916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Use of the dog as non-rodent test species in the safety testing schedule associated with the registration of crop and plant protection products (pesticides): present status.
Box RJ; Spielmann H
Arch Toxicol; 2005 Nov; 79(11):615-26. PubMed ID: 15940470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of the utility of the lifetime mouse bioassay in the identification of cancer hazards for humans.
Osimitz TG; Droege W; Boobis AR; Lake BG
Food Chem Toxicol; 2013 Oct; 60():550-62. PubMed ID: 23954551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection.
Rhomberg LR; Baetcke K; Blancato J; Bus J; Cohen S; Conolly R; Dixit R; Doe J; Ekelman K; Fenner-Crisp P; Harvey P; Hattis D; Jacobs A; Jacobson-Kram D; Lewandowski T; Liteplo R; Pelkonen O; Rice J; Somers D; Turturro A; West W; Olin S
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007; 37(9):729-837. PubMed ID: 17957539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Application of in vitro cell transformation assays in regulatory toxicology for pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food products and cosmetics.
Vanparys P; Corvi R; Aardema MJ; Gribaldo L; Hayashi M; Hoffmann S; Schechtman L
Mutat Res; 2012 Apr; 744(1):111-6. PubMed ID: 22342612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Approaches and considerations for the assessment of immunotoxicity for environmental chemicals: a workshop summary.
Boverhof DR; Ladics G; Luebke B; Botham J; Corsini E; Evans E; Germolec D; Holsapple M; Loveless SE; Lu H; van der Laan JW; White KL; Yang Y
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2014 Feb; 68(1):96-107. PubMed ID: 24280359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Safety assessment of personal care products/cosmetics and their ingredients.
Nohynek GJ; Antignac E; Re T; Toutain H
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2010 Mar; 243(2):239-59. PubMed ID: 20005888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH).
Lilienblum W; Dekant W; Foth H; Gebel T; Hengstler JG; Kahl R; Kramer PJ; Schweinfurth H; Wollin KM
Arch Toxicol; 2008 Apr; 82(4):211-36. PubMed ID: 18322675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
Jardine C; Hrudey S; Shortreed J; Craig L; Krewski D; Furgal C; McColl S
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2003; 6(6):569-720. PubMed ID: 14698953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. International harmonization for the risk assessment of pesticides: results of an IPCS survey.
Dragula C; Burin G
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Dec; 20(3 Pt 1):337-53. PubMed ID: 7724837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing.
Thybaud V; Aardema M; Clements J; Dearfield K; Galloway S; Hayashi M; Jacobson-Kram D; Kirkland D; MacGregor JT; Marzin D; Ohyama W; Schuler M; Suzuki H; Zeiger E;
Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):41-58. PubMed ID: 17126066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Developmental toxicity risk assessment: consensus building, hypothesis formulation, and focused research.
Kimmel CA
Drug Metab Rev; 1996; 28(1-2):85-103. PubMed ID: 8744591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The carcinogenic effects of aspartame: The urgent need for regulatory re-evaluation.
Soffritti M; Padovani M; Tibaldi E; Falcioni L; Manservisi F; Belpoggi F
Am J Ind Med; 2014 Apr; 57(4):383-97. PubMed ID: 24436139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Historical perspective on the use of animal bioassays to predict carcinogenicity: evolution in design and recognition of utility.
Beyer LA; Beck BD; Lewandowski TA
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2011 Apr; 41(4):321-38. PubMed ID: 21438739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Rationale of genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials: regulatory requirements and appropriateness of available OECD test guidelines.
Warheit DB; Donner EM
Nanotoxicology; 2010 Dec; 4():409-13. PubMed ID: 20925448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
