176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24662478)
1. Current modeling practice may lead to falsely high benchmark dose estimates.
Ringblom J; Johanson G; Öberg M
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2014 Jul; 69(2):171-7. PubMed ID: 24662478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of the benchmark dose for point of departure determination for a variety of chemical classes in applied regulatory settings.
Izadi H; Grundy JE; Bose R
Risk Anal; 2012 May; 32(5):830-5. PubMed ID: 22126138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The benchmark dose method--review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment.
Filipsson AF; Sand S; Nilsson J; Victorin K
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2003; 33(5):505-42. PubMed ID: 14594105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Bootstrap estimation of benchmark doses and confidence limits with clustered quantal data.
Zhu Y; Wang T; Jelsovsky JZ
Risk Anal; 2007 Apr; 27(2):447-65. PubMed ID: 17511711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA's benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1.
Davis JA; Gift JS; Zhao QJ
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2011 Jul; 254(2):181-91. PubMed ID: 21034758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment.
Sand S; Victorin K; Filipsson AF
J Appl Toxicol; 2008 May; 28(4):405-21. PubMed ID: 17879232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An evaluation of benchmark dose methodology for non-cancer continuous-data health effects in animals due to exposures to dioxin (TCDD).
Gaylor DW; Aylward LL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2004 Aug; 40(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 15265602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A Web-Based System for Bayesian Benchmark Dose Estimation.
Shao K; Shapiro AJ
Environ Health Perspect; 2018 Jan; 126(1):017002. PubMed ID: 29329100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparing experimental designs for benchmark dose calculations for continuous endpoints.
Kuljus K; von Rosen D; Sand S; Victorin K
Risk Anal; 2006 Aug; 26(4):1031-43. PubMed ID: 16948695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Model Uncertainty and Bayesian Model Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Data.
Shao K; Gift JS
Risk Anal; 2014 Jan; 34(1):101-20. PubMed ID: 23758102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints.
Sand S; von Rosen D; Victorin K; Filipsson AF
Toxicol Sci; 2006 Mar; 90(1):241-51. PubMed ID: 16322076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Benchmark dose approaches in chemical health risk assessment in relation to number and distress of laboratory animals.
Oberg M
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010 Dec; 58(3):451-4. PubMed ID: 20800084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Benchmark dose and the three Rs. Part I. Getting more information from the same number of animals.
Slob W
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2014 Aug; 44(7):557-67. PubMed ID: 25000332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Does EU legislation allow the use of the Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach for risk assessment?
Brandon EF; Bulder AS; van Engelen JG; Mahieu CM; Mennes WC; Pronk ME; Rietveld AG; van de Ven BM; Ten Voorde SE; Wolterink G; Slob W; Zeilmaker MJ; Bessems JG
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Nov; 67(2):182-8. PubMed ID: 23871753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Properties of model-averaged BMDLs: a study of model averaging in dichotomous response risk estimation.
Wheeler MW; Bailer AJ
Risk Anal; 2007 Jun; 27(3):659-70. PubMed ID: 17640214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Deriving a data-based interspecies assessment factor using the NOAEL and the benchmark dose approach.
Bokkers BG; Slob W
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007 Jun; 37(5):355-73. PubMed ID: 17612951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
