485 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21627106)
21. Application of toxicogenomics to genetic toxicology risk assessment.
Thybaud V; Le Fevre AC; Boitier E
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2007 Jun; 48(5):369-79. PubMed ID: 17567850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Predicting the hepatocarcinogenic potential of alkenylbenzene flavoring agents using toxicogenomics and machine learning.
Auerbach SS; Shah RR; Mav D; Smith CS; Walker NJ; Vallant MK; Boorman GA; Irwin RD
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2010 Mar; 243(3):300-14. PubMed ID: 20004213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Comparison of hepatocarcinogen-induced gene expression profiles in conventional primary rat hepatocytes with in vivo rat liver.
Doktorova TY; Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; Vinken M; Vanhaecke T; van Delft J; Kleinjans J; Ahr HJ; Rogiers V
Arch Toxicol; 2012 Sep; 86(9):1399-411. PubMed ID: 22484513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Assessing the reliability of a QSAR model's predictions.
He L; Jurs PC
J Mol Graph Model; 2005 Jun; 23(6):503-23. PubMed ID: 15896992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Development and validation of a robust QSAR model for prediction of carcinogenicity of drugs.
Kar S; Roy K
Indian J Biochem Biophys; 2011 Apr; 48(2):111-22. PubMed ID: 21682143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals. II. Using oral slope factor as a measure of carcinogenic potency.
Wang NC; Venkatapathy R; Bruce RM; Moudgal C
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Mar; 59(2):215-26. PubMed ID: 20951756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. First report on development of quantitative interspecies structure-carcinogenicity relationship models and exploring discriminatory features for rodent carcinogenicity of diverse organic chemicals using OECD guidelines.
Kar S; Roy K
Chemosphere; 2012 Apr; 87(4):339-55. PubMed ID: 22225702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of supervised clustering methods to discriminate genotoxic from non-genotoxic carcinogens by gene expression profiling.
van Delft JH; van Agen E; van Breda SG; Herwijnen MH; Staal YC; Kleinjans JC
Mutat Res; 2005 Aug; 575(1-2):17-33. PubMed ID: 15924884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Toxicogenomics and cancer risk assessment: a framework for key event analysis and dose-response assessment for nongenotoxic carcinogens.
Bercu JP; Jolly RA; Flagella KM; Baker TK; Romero P; Stevens JL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010 Dec; 58(3):369-81. PubMed ID: 20801182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of transcriptomic and metabonomic technologies for identifying biomarkers predictive of two-year rodent cancer bioassays.
Thomas RS; O'Connell TM; Pluta L; Wolfinger RD; Yang L; Page TJ
Toxicol Sci; 2007 Mar; 96(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 17114358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Combinatorial QSAR modeling of chemical toxicants tested against Tetrahymena pyriformis.
Zhu H; Tropsha A; Fourches D; Varnek A; Papa E; Gramatica P; Oberg T; Dao P; Cherkasov A; Tetko IV
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):766-84. PubMed ID: 18311912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Structure-activity models of chemical carcinogens: state of the art, and new directions.
Benigni R; Bossa C
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2006; 42(2):118-26. PubMed ID: 17033131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Critical assessment of QSAR models of environmental toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: focusing on applicability domain and overfitting by variable selection.
Tetko IV; Sushko I; Pandey AK; Zhu H; Tropsha A; Papa E; Oberg T; Todeschini R; Fourches D; Varnek A
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Sep; 48(9):1733-46. PubMed ID: 18729318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: II. Construction of QSAR models to predict activities of untested chemicals.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Daniel Benz R; Ivanov J; Klopman G; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Mar; 47(2):136-55. PubMed ID: 17175082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Computer-aided rodent carcinogenicity prediction.
Lagunin AA; Dearden JC; Filimonov DA; Poroikov VV
Mutat Res; 2005 Oct; 586(2):138-46. PubMed ID: 16112600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Discrimination for genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens by gene expression profiling in primary mouse hepatocytes improves with exposure time.
Mathijs K; Brauers KJ; Jennen DG; Boorsma A; van Herwijnen MH; Gottschalk RW; Kleinjans JC; van Delft JH
Toxicol Sci; 2009 Dec; 112(2):374-84. PubMed ID: 19770486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Differences in gene expression profiles in the liver between carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic isomers of compounds given to rats in a 28-day repeat-dose toxicity study.
Nakayama K; Kawano Y; Kawakami Y; Moriwaki N; Sekijima M; Otsuka M; Yakabe Y; Miyaura H; Saito K; Sumida K; Shirai T
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2006 Dec; 217(3):299-307. PubMed ID: 17070881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Robust cross-validation of linear regression QSAR models.
Konovalov DA; Llewellyn LE; Vander Heyden Y; Coomans D
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Oct; 48(10):2081-94. PubMed ID: 18826208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens.
Vogel EW; Graf U; Frei HJ; Nivard MM
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):427-70. PubMed ID: 10353398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
