177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23069141)
21. Identification of mammary carcinogens in rodent bioassays.
Bennett LM; Davis BJ
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2002; 39(2-3):150-7. PubMed ID: 11921183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Application of genomic biomarkers to predict increased lung tumor incidence in 2-year rodent cancer bioassays.
Thomas RS; Pluta L; Yang L; Halsey TA
Toxicol Sci; 2007 May; 97(1):55-64. PubMed ID: 17311802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. An analysis of pharmaceutical experience with decades of rat carcinogenicity testing: support for a proposal to modify current regulatory guidelines.
Sistare FD; Morton D; Alden C; Christensen J; Keller D; Jonghe SD; Storer RD; Reddy MV; Kraynak A; Trela B; Bienvenu JG; Bjurström S; Bosmans V; Brewster D; Colman K; Dominick M; Evans J; Hailey JR; Kinter L; Liu M; Mahrt C; Marien D; Myer J; Perry R; Potenta D; Roth A; Sherratt P; Singer T; Slim R; Soper K; Fransson-Steen R; Stoltz J; Turner O; Turnquist S; van Heerden M; Woicke J; DeGeorge JJ
Toxicol Pathol; 2011 Jun; 39(4):716-44. PubMed ID: 21666103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Critical evaluation of the cancer risk of dibromochloropropane (DBCP).
Clark HA; Snedeker SM
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2005; 23(2):215-60. PubMed ID: 16291528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Identification of rodent carcinogens by an expert system.
Rosenkranz HS; Klopman G
Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340B():23-48. PubMed ID: 2203007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A reexamination of the low prevalence of carcinogens in an early carcinogen screen.
McGregor DB; Pangrekar J; Rosenkranz HS; Klopman G
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Feb; 19(1):97-105. PubMed ID: 8159818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Predicting carcinogenicity of diverse chemicals using probabilistic neural network modeling approaches.
Singh KP; Gupta S; Rai P
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2013 Oct; 272(2):465-75. PubMed ID: 23856075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Evaluation of carcinogenicity studies of medicinal products for human use authorised via the European centralised procedure (1995-2009).
Friedrich A; Olejniczak K
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Jul; 60(2):225-48. PubMed ID: 21513764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Chemicals classified by IARC: their potency in tests for carcinogenicity in rodents and their genotoxicity and acute toxicity.
McGregor DB
IARC Sci Publ; 1992; (116):323-52. PubMed ID: 1428089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A data-based assessment of alternative strategies for identification of potential human cancer hazards.
Boobis AR; Cohen SM; Doerrer NG; Galloway SM; Haley PJ; Hard GC; Hess FG; Macdonald JS; Thibault S; Wolf DC; Wright J
Toxicol Pathol; 2009 Oct; 37(6):714-32. PubMed ID: 19700658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Genotoxicity of 1,3-butadiene and its epoxy intermediates.
Walker VE; Walker DM; Meng Q; McDonald JD; Scott BR; Seilkop SK; Claffey DJ; Upton PB; Powley MW; Swenberg JA; Henderson RF;
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2009 Aug; (144):3-79. PubMed ID: 20017413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. How well can in vitro data predict in vivo effects of chemicals? Rodent carcinogenicity as a case study.
Anthony Tony Cox L; Popken DA; Kaplan AM; Plunkett LM; Becker RA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Jun; 77():54-64. PubMed ID: 26879462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Predictions for the outcome of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays: identification of trans-species carcinogens and noncarcinogens.
Tennant RW; Spalding J
Environ Health Perspect; 1996 Oct; 104 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):1095-100. PubMed ID: 8933059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Gender differences in chemical carcinogenesis in National Toxicology Program 2-year bioassays.
Kadekar S; Peddada S; Silins I; French JE; Högberg J; Stenius U
Toxicol Pathol; 2012 Dec; 40(8):1160-8. PubMed ID: 22585941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Using the NTP database to assess the value of rodent carcinogenicity studies for determining human cancer risk.
Haseman JK
Drug Metab Rev; 2000 May; 32(2):169-86. PubMed ID: 10774773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The relationship between use of the maximum tolerated dose and study sensitivity for detecting rodent carcinogenicity.
Haseman JK; Lockhart A
Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1994 Apr; 22(3):382-91. PubMed ID: 8050633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
