273 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23669331)
21. Construction and application of (Q)SAR models to predict chemical-induced in vitro chromosome aberrations.
Hsu CW; Hewes KP; Stavitskaya L; Kruhlak NL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Nov; 99():274-288. PubMed ID: 30278198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Latest advances in computational genotoxicity prediction.
Naven RT; Greene N; Williams RV
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2012 Dec; 8(12):1579-87. PubMed ID: 22998164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Utility of published DNA reactivity alerts.
Myden A; Guesne SJ; Cayley A; Williams RV
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Aug; 88():77-86. PubMed ID: 28549899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparative evaluation of 11 in silico models for the prediction of small molecule mutagenicity: role of steric hindrance and electron-withdrawing groups.
Ford KA; Ryslik G; Chan BK; Lewin-Koh SC; Almeida D; Stokes M; Gomez SR
Toxicol Mech Methods; 2017 Jan; 27(1):24-35. PubMed ID: 27813437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Characterization and validation of an in silico toxicology model to predict the mutagenic potential of drug impurities.
Valerio LG; Cross KP
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2012 May; 260(3):209-21. PubMed ID: 22426359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The application of structure-based assessment to support safety and chemistry diligence to manage genotoxic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients during drug development.
Dobo KL; Greene N; Cyr MO; Caron S; Ku WW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Apr; 44(3):282-93. PubMed ID: 16464524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Resolution of contradiction between in silico predictions and Ames test results for four pharmaceutically relevant impurities.
Gunther WC; Kenyon MO; Cheung JR; Dugger RW; Dobo KL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Dec; 91():68-76. PubMed ID: 29061373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. An evaluation of in-house and off-the-shelf in silico models: implications on guidance for mutagenicity assessment.
Jolly R; Ahmed KB; Zwickl C; Watson I; Gombar V
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Apr; 71(3):388-97. PubMed ID: 25656493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Management of pharmaceutical ICH M7 (Q)SAR predictions - The impact of model updates.
Hasselgren C; Bercu J; Cayley A; Cross K; Glowienke S; Kruhlak N; Muster W; Nicolette J; Reddy MV; Saiakhov R; Dobo K
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2020 Dec; 118():104807. PubMed ID: 33058939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30.
Benigni R; Bassan A; Pavan M
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2020 Aug; 16(8):651-662. PubMed ID: 32567390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules.
Snyder RD; Pearl GS; Mandakas G; Choy WN; Goodsaid F; Rosenblum IY
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2004; 43(3):143-58. PubMed ID: 15065202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Improved in silico prediction of carcinogenic potency (TD50) and the risk specific dose (RSD) adjusted Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for genotoxic chemicals and pharmaceutical impurities.
Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Feb; 59(1):133-41. PubMed ID: 20933038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Assessing the utility of common arguments used in expert review of in silico predictions as part of ICH M7 assessments.
Cayley AN; Foster RS; Brigo A; Muster W; Musso A; Kenyon MO; Parris P; White AT; Cohen-Ohana M; Nudelman R; Glowienke S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2023 Oct; 144():105490. PubMed ID: 37659712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. In silico prediction of chromosome damage: comparison of three (Q)SAR models.
Morita T; Shigeta Y; Kawamura T; Fujita Y; Honda H; Honma M
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 30085209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing.
Thybaud V; Aardema M; Clements J; Dearfield K; Galloway S; Hayashi M; Jacobson-Kram D; Kirkland D; MacGregor JT; Marzin D; Ohyama W; Schuler M; Suzuki H; Zeiger E;
Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):41-58. PubMed ID: 17126066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity.
Bakhtyari NG; Raitano G; Benfenati E; Martin T; Young D
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2013; 31(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 23534394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The application of structure-activity relationships to the prediction of the mutagenic activity of chemicals.
Judson P
Methods Mol Biol; 2012; 817():1-19. PubMed ID: 22147565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. It's difficult, but important, to make negative predictions.
Williams RV; Amberg A; Brigo A; Coquin L; Giddings A; Glowienke S; Greene N; Jolly R; Kemper R; O'Leary-Steele C; Parenty A; Spirkl HP; Stalford SA; Weiner SK; Wichard J
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Apr; 76():79-86. PubMed ID: 26785392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Determination of the impurities in drug products containing montelukast and in silico/in vitro genotoxicological assessments of sulfoxide impurity.
Emerce E; Cok I; Degim IT
Toxicol Lett; 2015 Oct; 238(2):90-9. PubMed ID: 26205398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations.
Hillebrecht A; Muster W; Brigo A; Kansy M; Weiser T; Singer T
Chem Res Toxicol; 2011 Jun; 24(6):843-54. PubMed ID: 21534561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
