223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21147607)
1. Moving forward in human cancer risk assessment.
Paules RS; Aubrecht J; Corvi R; Garthoff B; Kleinjans JC
Environ Health Perspect; 2011 Jun; 119(6):739-43. PubMed ID: 21147607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Müller L; Makoto H
Mutat Res; 2006 Sep; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. A perspective on current and future uses of alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.
Goodman JI
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():173-6. PubMed ID: 11695554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Animal carcinogenicity studies: implications for the REACH system.
Knight A; Bailey J; Balcombe J
Altern Lab Anim; 2006 Mar; 34 Suppl 1():139-47. PubMed ID: 16555967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Assessment of human cancer risk: challenges for alternative approaches.
Omenn GS
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():5-12. PubMed ID: 11695561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An integrative test strategy for cancer hazard identification.
Luijten M; Olthof ED; Hakkert BC; Rorije E; van der Laan JW; Woutersen RA; van Benthem J
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2016 Aug; 46(7):615-39. PubMed ID: 27142259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop.
Kirkland D; Pfuhler S; Tweats D; Aardema M; Corvi R; Darroudi F; Elhajouji A; Glatt H; Hastwell P; Hayashi M; Kasper P; Kirchner S; Lynch A; Marzin D; Maurici D; Meunier JR; Müller L; Nohynek G; Parry J; Parry E; Thybaud V; Tice R; van Benthem J; Vanparys P; White P
Mutat Res; 2007 Mar; 628(1):31-55. PubMed ID: 17293159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations.
Dearfield KL; Gollapudi BB; Bemis JC; Benz RD; Douglas GR; Elespuru RK; Johnson GE; Kirkland DJ; LeBaron MJ; Li AP; Marchetti F; Pottenger LH; Rorije E; Tanir JY; Thybaud V; van Benthem J; Yauk CL; Zeiger E; Luijten M
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2017 Jun; 58(5):264-283. PubMed ID: 27650663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective.
Bolt HM; Foth H; Hengstler JG; Degen GH
Toxicol Lett; 2004 Jun; 151(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 15177638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The mouse carcinogenicity study is no longer a scientifically justifiable core data requirement for the safety assessment of pesticides.
Billington R; Lewis RW; Mehta JM; Dewhurst I
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2010 Jan; 40(1):35-49. PubMed ID: 20144135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Thresholds for carcinogens.
Calabrese EJ; Priest ND; Kozumbo WJ
Chem Biol Interact; 2021 May; 341():109464. PubMed ID: 33823170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessing compound carcinogenicity in vitro using connectivity mapping.
Caiment F; Tsamou M; Jennen D; Kleinjans J
Carcinogenesis; 2014 Jan; 35(1):201-7. PubMed ID: 23940306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A cross-sector call to improve carcinogenicity risk assessment through use of genomic methodologies.
Yauk CL; Harrill AH; Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; van der Laan JW; Moggs J; Froetschl R; Sistare F; Pettit S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2020 Feb; 110():104526. PubMed ID: 31726190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Putting the Predictive Toxicology Challenge into perspective: reflections on the results.
Benigni R; Giuliani A
Bioinformatics; 2003 Jul; 19(10):1194-200. PubMed ID: 12835261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Quantitation of molecular endpoints for the dose-response component of cancer risk assessment.
Preston RJ
Toxicol Pathol; 2002; 30(1):112-6. PubMed ID: 11890462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Mechanistic data and cancer risk assessment: the need for quantitative molecular endpoints.
Preston RJ
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2005; 45(2-3):214-21. PubMed ID: 15645441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
