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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23161611)

  • 21. Constructing Time-Resolved Species Sensitivity Distributions Using a Hierarchical Toxico-Dynamic Model.
    Kon Kam King G; Delignette-Muller ML; Kefford BJ; Piscart C; Charles S
    Environ Sci Technol; 2015 Oct; 49(20):12465-73. PubMed ID: 26406398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Critical issues in using the common mixture toxicity models concentration addition or response addition on species sensitivity distributions: a theoretical approach.
    Gregorio V; Chèvre N; Junghans M
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Oct; 32(10):2387-95. PubMed ID: 23804417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Accelerating the pace of ecotoxicological assessment using artificial intelligence.
    Song R; Li D; Chang A; Tao M; Qin Y; Keller AA; Suh S
    Ambio; 2022 Mar; 51(3):598-610. PubMed ID: 34427865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. How to account for the uncertainty from standard toxicity tests in species sensitivity distributions: An example in non-target plants.
    Charles S; Wu D; Ducrot V
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(1):e0245071. PubMed ID: 33411834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. QSAR-Based Estimation of Species Sensitivity Distribution Parameters: An Exploratory Investigation.
    Hoondert RPJ; Oldenkamp R; de Zwart D; van de Meent D; Posthuma L
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Dec; 38(12):2764-2770. PubMed ID: 31553801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Recent Developments in Species Sensitivity Distribution Modeling.
    Fox DR; van Dam RA; Fisher R; Batley GE; Tillmanns AR; Thorley J; Schwarz CJ; Spry DJ; McTavish K
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2021 Feb; 40(2):293-308. PubMed ID: 33170526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Application of chemical toxicity distributions to ecotoxicology data requirements under REACH.
    Williams ES; Berninger JP; Brooks BW
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2011 Aug; 30(8):1943-54. PubMed ID: 21590796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparing aquatic risk assessment methods for the photosynthesis-inhibiting herbicides metribuzin and metamitron.
    Brock TC; Crum SJ; Deneer JW; Heimbach F; Roijackers RM; Sinkeldam JA
    Environ Pollut; 2004 Aug; 130(3):403-26. PubMed ID: 15182972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. "Quantifying the precision of ecological risk: Misunderstandings and errors in the methods for assessment factors versus species sensitivity distributions".
    Belanger SE; Carr GJ
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2020 Jul; 198():110684. PubMed ID: 32408188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of in silico development of aquatic toxicity species sensitivity distributions.
    Barron MG; Jackson CR; Awkerman JA
    Aquat Toxicol; 2012 Jul; 116-117():1-7. PubMed ID: 22459408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Multispecies toxicity test for silver nanoparticles to derive hazardous concentration based on species sensitivity distribution for the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
    Kwak JI; Cui R; Nam SH; Kim SW; Chae Y; An YJ
    Nanotoxicology; 2016; 10(5):521-30. PubMed ID: 26634622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Plant species sensitivity distributions for ozone exposure.
    van Goethem TM; Azevedo LB; van Zelm R; Hayes F; Ashmore MR; Huijbregts MA
    Environ Pollut; 2013 Jul; 178():1-6. PubMed ID: 23501341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Dietary Toxicity Thresholds and Ecological Risks for Birds and Mammals Based on Species Sensitivity Distributions.
    Korsman JC; Schipper AM; Hendriks AJ
    Environ Sci Technol; 2016 Oct; 50(19):10644-10652. PubMed ID: 27579512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. More noise does not mean more precision: A review of Aldenberg and Rorije (2013).
    Fox DR
    Altern Lab Anim; 2015 Sep; 43(4):241-9. PubMed ID: 26375888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Developing species sensitivity distributions for metallic nanomaterials considering the characteristics of nanomaterials, experimental conditions, and different types of endpoints.
    Chen G; Peijnenburg WJGM; Xiao Y; Vijver MG
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2018 Feb; 112():563-570. PubMed ID: 28390859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. General unified threshold model of survival--a toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic framework for ecotoxicology.
    Jager T; Albert C; Preuss TG; Ashauer R
    Environ Sci Technol; 2011 Apr; 45(7):2529-40. PubMed ID: 21366215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Quantifying the precision of ecological risk: Conventional assessment factor method vs. species sensitivity distribution method.
    Sorgog K; Kamo M
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2019 Nov; 183():109494. PubMed ID: 31376805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Soil ecological criteria for nickel as a function of soil properties.
    Wang X; Wei D; Ma Y; McLaughlin MJ
    Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2018 Jan; 25(3):2137-2146. PubMed ID: 29110234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Bayesian and time-independent species sensitivity distributions for risk assessment of chemicals.
    Grist EP; O'Hagan A; Crane M; Sorokin N; Sims I; Whitehouse P
    Environ Sci Technol; 2006 Jan; 40(1):395-401. PubMed ID: 16433377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Toxicity of sediment-bound lufenuron to benthic arthropods in laboratory bioassays.
    Brock TCM; Belgers JDM; Boerwinkel MC; Jollie L; Kraak MHS; Papo MJ; Vonk JA; Roessink I
    Aquat Toxicol; 2018 May; 198():118-128. PubMed ID: 29529467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.