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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2333083)

  • 1. Prediction of carcinogenic potency from toxicological data.
    Travis CC; Pack SA; Saulsbury AW; Yambert MW
    Mutat Res; 1990 May; 241(1):21-36. PubMed ID: 2333083
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quantitative correlation of carcinogenic potency with four different classes of short-term test data.
    Travis CC; Wang LA; Waehner MJ
    Mutagenesis; 1991 Sep; 6(5):353-60. PubMed ID: 1795638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A survey of the Predictive Toxicology Challenge 2000-2001.
    Helma C; Kramer S
    Bioinformatics; 2003 Jul; 19(10):1179-82. PubMed ID: 12835259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity using the DEREK system for 30 chemicals currently being tested by the National Toxicology Program. The DEREK Collaborative Group.
    Marchant CA
    Environ Health Perspect; 1996 Oct; 104 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):1065-73. PubMed ID: 8933056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity for 30 chemicals.
    Ashby J
    Environ Health Perspect; 1996 Oct; 104 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):1101-4. PubMed ID: 8933060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
    Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Prediction of carcinogenicity from two versus four sex-species groups in the carcinogenic potency database.
    Gold LS; Slone TH
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1993 May; 39(1):143-57. PubMed ID: 8492327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Prediction of cancer potency using a battery of mutation and toxicity data.
    Travis CC; Saulsbury AW; Pack SA
    Mutagenesis; 1990 May; 5(3):213-9. PubMed ID: 2385175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Carcinogenic Potency Database: analyses of 4000 chronic animal cancer experiments published in the general literature and by the U.S. National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program.
    Gold LS; Slone TH; Manley NB; Garfinkel GB; Hudes ES; Rohrbach L; Ames BN
    Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Dec; 96():11-5. PubMed ID: 1820251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay for toxicity prediction: are we there yet?
    Benigni R
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2012 Apr; 8(4):407-17. PubMed ID: 22360376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Summary of carcinogenic potency and positivity for 492 rodent carcinogens in the carcinogenic potency database.
    Gold LS; Slone TH; Bernstein L
    Environ Health Perspect; 1989 Feb; 79():259-72. PubMed ID: 2707207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Validation of a novel molecular orbital approach (COMPACT) for the prospective safety evaluation of chemicals, by comparison with rodent carcinogenicity and Salmonella mutagenicity data evaluated by the U.S. NCI/NTP.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Mutat Res; 1993 Feb; 291(1):61-77. PubMed ID: 7678916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Aspects of database construction and interrogation of relevance to the accurate prediction of rodent carcinogenicity and mutagenicity.
    Ashby J
    Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Dec; 96():97-100. PubMed ID: 1820286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Carcinogenicity of the aromatic amines: from structure-activity relationships to mechanisms of action and risk assessment.
    Benigni R; Passerini L
    Mutat Res; 2002 Jul; 511(3):191-206. PubMed ID: 12088717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mutagens that are not carcinogens: faulty theory or faulty tests?
    Zeiger E
    Mutat Res; 2001 May; 492(1-2):29-38. PubMed ID: 11377241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Examples of uses of databases for quantitative and qualitative correlation studies between genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.
    Parodi S; Malacarne D; Taningher M
    Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Dec; 96():61-6. PubMed ID: 1820280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Application of in vitro cell transformation assays in regulatory toxicology for pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food products and cosmetics.
    Vanparys P; Corvi R; Aardema MJ; Gribaldo L; Hayashi M; Hoffmann S; Schechtman L
    Mutat Res; 2012 Apr; 744(1):111-6. PubMed ID: 22342612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Strategy of long-term animal testing for quantitative evaluation of chemical carcinogenicity.
    Hayashi Y; Kurokawa Y; Maekawa A; Takahashi M
    Dev Toxicol Environ Sci; 1986; 12():383-91. PubMed ID: 3549239
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Mutation research, genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis.
    Martus HJ; Suter W
    Mutat Res; 2009 Jan; 672(2):135. PubMed ID: 19056513
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.