267 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22126138)
21. Point of departure (PoD) selection for the derivation of acceptable daily exposures (ADEs) for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs).
Bercu JP; Morinello EJ; Sehner C; Shipp BK; Weideman PA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Aug; 79 Suppl 1():S48-56. PubMed ID: 27233925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Non-cancer risk assessment for nickel compounds: issues associated with dose-response modeling of inhalation and oral exposures.
Haber LT; Allen BC; Kimmel CA
Toxicol Sci; 1998 Jun; 43(2):213-29. PubMed ID: 9710963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Benchmark dose calculation for ordered categorical responses.
Chen CC; Chen JJ
Risk Anal; 2014 Aug; 34(8):1435-47. PubMed ID: 24444309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Benchmark dose analysis of multiple thyroid toxicity endpoints in ovariectomized rats exposed to propylthiouracil.
Chen H; Zhang X; Jia X; Liu Z
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Aug; 97():120-126. PubMed ID: 29928935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Relation between benchmark dose and no-observed-adverse-effect level in clinical research: effects of daily alcohol intake on blood pressure in Japanese salesmen.
Dakeishi M; Murata K; Tamura A; Iwata T
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):115-23. PubMed ID: 16492185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A probabilistic framework for non-cancer risk assessment.
Chen JJ; Moon H; Kodell RL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Jun; 48(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 17166641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Regulatory cancer risk assessment based on a quick estimate of a benchmark dose derived from the maximum tolerated dose.
Gaylor DW; Swirsky Gold L
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Dec; 28(3):222-5. PubMed ID: 10049793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Evaluation of subchronic toxicity data using the benchmark dose approach.
Gephart LA; Salminen WF; Nicolich MJ; Pelekis M
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2001 Feb; 33(1):37-59. PubMed ID: 11259178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Recommended approaches in the application of toxicogenomics to derive points of departure for chemical risk assessment.
Farmahin R; Williams A; Kuo B; Chepelev NL; Thomas RS; Barton-Maclaren TS; Curran IH; Nong A; Wade MG; Yauk CL
Arch Toxicol; 2017 May; 91(5):2045-2065. PubMed ID: 27928627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The use of myocardial and testicular end points as a basis for estimating a proposed tolerable daily intake for sodium monofluoroacetate (1080).
Foronda NM; Fowles J; Smith N; Taylor M; Temple W; Darlington C
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Feb; 47(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 17030370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Benchmark Dose Workshop: criteria for use of a benchmark dose to estimate a reference dose.
Barnes DG; Daston GP; Evans JS; Jarabek AM; Kavlock RJ; Kimmel CA; Park C; Spitzer HL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Apr; 21(2):296-306. PubMed ID: 7644719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A statistical evaluation of toxicity study designs for the estimation of the benchmark dose in continuous endpoints.
Slob W; Moerbeek M; Rauniomaa E; Piersma AH
Toxicol Sci; 2005 Mar; 84(1):167-85. PubMed ID: 15483190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Study parameters influencing NOAEL and LOAEL in toxicity feeding studies for pesticides: exposure duration versus dose decrement, dose spacing, group size and chemical class.
Zarn JA; Engeli BE; Schlatter JR
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Nov; 61(2):243-50. PubMed ID: 21875639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Is the assumption of normality or log-normality for continuous response data critical for benchmark dose estimation?
Shao K; Gift JS; Setzer RW
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2013 Nov; 272(3):767-79. PubMed ID: 23954464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparison of the lower limit of benchmark dose confidence interval with no-observed-adverse-effect level by applying four different software for tumorigenicity testing of pesticides in Japan.
Yasuhiko Y; Ishigami M; Machino S; Fujii T; Aoki M; Irie F; Kanda Y; Yoshida M
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2022 Aug; 133():105201. PubMed ID: 35691450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Quantitative approaches for assessing dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology studies.
Gollapudi BB; Johnson GE; Hernandez LG; Pottenger LH; Dearfield KL; Jeffrey AM; Julien E; Kim JH; Lovell DP; Macgregor JT; Moore MM; van Benthem J; White PA; Zeiger E; Thybaud V
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2013 Jan; 54(1):8-18. PubMed ID: 22987251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment.
Gaylor D; Ryan L; Krewski D; Zhu Y
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Oct; 28(2):150-64. PubMed ID: 9927564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The benchmark dose approach in food risk assessment: is it applicable and worthwhile?
Muri SD; Schlatter JR; Brüschweiler BJ
Food Chem Toxicol; 2009 Dec; 47(12):2906-25. PubMed ID: 19682530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Background to the ADI/TDI/PTWI.
Herrman JL; Younes M
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1999 Oct; 30(2 Pt 2):S109-13. PubMed ID: 10597623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Benchmark dose modelling in regulatory ecotoxicology, a potential tool in pest management.
Jensen SM; Kluxen FM; Ritz C
Pest Manag Sci; 2022 May; 78(5):1772-1779. PubMed ID: 34908226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
