These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2185509)

  • 1. Hazard evaluation for complex mixtures: relative comparisons to improve regulatory consistency.
    Owen BA; Jones TD
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1990 Apr; 11(2):132-48. PubMed ID: 2185509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The linearized multistage model and the future of quantitative risk assessment.
    Crump KS
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1996 Oct; 15(10):787-98. PubMed ID: 8906427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Default assumptions in carcinogen risk assessment used by regulatory agencies.
    Moolenaar RJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Dec; 20(3 Pt 2):S135-41. PubMed ID: 7724845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reducing uncertainty in risk assessment by using specific knowledge to replace default options.
    McClellan RO
    Drug Metab Rev; 1996; 28(1-2):149-79. PubMed ID: 8744594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Identifying carcinogens: the tobacco industry and regulatory politics in the United States.
    Cook DM; Bero LA
    Int J Health Serv; 2006; 36(4):747-66. PubMed ID: 17175844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of carcinogenic potency across life stages: implications for the assessment of transplacental cancer risk.
    Dzubow R; Fields C; Ginsberg G; Sandy M; Mabson M; Foos B
    J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2019; 82(13):769-787. PubMed ID: 31402766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Part 1. Statistical Learning Methods for the Effects of Multiple Air Pollution Constituents.
    Coull BA; Bobb JF; Wellenius GA; Kioumourtzoglou MA; Mittleman MA; Koutrakis P; Godleski JJ
    Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2015 Jun; (183 Pt 1-2):5-50. PubMed ID: 26333238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The calculation and use of carcinogenic potency: a review.
    Barr JT
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1985 Dec; 5(4):432-59. PubMed ID: 3912853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Federal regulatory assessment approach at the U.S. EPA.
    Fenner-Crisp P
    Sci Total Environ; 1990 Dec; 99(3):257-61; discussion 261-2. PubMed ID: 2077658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Improving the regulation of carcinogens by expediting cancer potency estimation.
    Hoover SM; Zeise L; Pease WS; Lee LE; Hennig MP; Weiss LB; Cranor C
    Risk Anal; 1995 Apr; 15(2):267-80. PubMed ID: 7597261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A discussion of the U.S. EPA methodology for determining Water Quality Standards (WQS).
    Burmaster DE; von Stackelberg KE
    Qual Assur; 1992 Jun; 1(3):192-206. PubMed ID: 1344674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [The evaluation of occupational exposure to carcinogenic substances: limit values and risk assessments].
    Apostoli P; Porru S; Alessio L
    G Ital Med Lav; 1990; 12(5-6):201-7. PubMed ID: 2152617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma.
    Berman DW; Crump KS
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2008; 38 Suppl 1():1-47. PubMed ID: 18671157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Approaches for describing and communicating overall uncertainty in toxicity characterizations: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as a case study.
    Beck NB; Becker RA; Erraguntla N; Farland WH; Grant RL; Gray G; Kirman C; LaKind JS; Jeffrey Lewis R; Nance P; Pottenger LH; Santos SL; Shirley S; Simon T; Dourson ML
    Environ Int; 2016; 89-90():110-28. PubMed ID: 26827183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Standard setting processes and regulations for environmental contaminants in drinking water: state versus federal needs and viewpoints.
    Sidhu KS
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1991 Jun; 13(3):293-308. PubMed ID: 1947238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Unveiling variability and uncertainty for better science and decisions on cancer risks from environmental chemicals.
    Bogen KT
    Risk Anal; 2014 Oct; 34(10):1795-806. PubMed ID: 25407123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Chloroform: An EPA test case.
    Schmidt CW
    Environ Health Perspect; 1999 Jul; 107(7):A358-60. PubMed ID: 10379014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Permissible concentrations of chemicals in air and water derived from RTECS entries: a "rash" chemical scoring system.
    Jones TD; Walsh PJ; Zeighami EA
    Toxicol Ind Health; 1985 Dec; 1(4):213-34. PubMed ID: 3843502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The perils of prudence: how conservative risk assessments distort regulation.
    Nichols AL; Zeckhauser RJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1988 Mar; 8(1):61-75. PubMed ID: 3368587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Use of 'secondary mechanism' in the regulation of carcinogens; a chronology.
    Scheuplein RJ
    Cancer Lett; 1995 Jun; 93(1):103-12. PubMed ID: 7600537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.