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 *

85 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25908510)

  • 1. Improving the power of long term rodent carcinogenicity bioassays by adjusting the experimental design.
    Jackson MT
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Jul; 72(2):231-43. PubMed ID: 25908510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
    Gaylor DW
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection.
    Rhomberg LR; Baetcke K; Blancato J; Bus J; Cohen S; Conolly R; Dixit R; Doe J; Ekelman K; Fenner-Crisp P; Harvey P; Hattis D; Jacobs A; Jacobson-Kram D; Lewandowski T; Liteplo R; Pelkonen O; Rice J; Somers D; Turturro A; West W; Olin S
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007; 37(9):729-837. PubMed ID: 17957539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Experimental design constraints on carcinogenic potency estimates.
    Rieth JP; Starr TB
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1989; 27(3):287-96. PubMed ID: 2754755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Design and evaluation of rodent carcinogenicity studies (bioassay).
    Usui T
    J Toxicol Sci; 1995 Sep; 20(4):457-8. PubMed ID: 8531240
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Monte Carlo simulation of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays.
    Shlyakhter A; Goodman G; Wilson R
    Risk Anal; 1992 Mar; 12(1):73-82. PubMed ID: 1574618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Need for dietary control by caloric restriction in rodent toxicology and carcinogenicity studies.
    Keenan KP; Laroque P; Dixit R
    J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 1998; 1(2):135-48. PubMed ID: 9650534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Excess mortality in two-year rodent carcinogenicity studies.
    Roth A; Kadyszewski E; Geffray B; Paulissen J; Weaver RJ
    Toxicol Pathol; 2007 Dec; 35(7):1040-3. PubMed ID: 18098048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Long- and medium-term carcinogenicity studies in animals and short-term genotoxicity tests.
    Feron VJ; Schwarz M; Hemminki K; Krewski D
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (131):103-29. PubMed ID: 10505295
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimal design of the chronic animal bioassay.
    Portier C; Hoel D
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1983 Jul; 12(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 6631999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cage allocation designs for rodent carcinogenicity experiments.
    Herzberg AM; Lagakos SW
    Environ Health Perspect; 1992 Jul; 97():277-80. PubMed ID: 1295494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.
    Kirkland D; Aardema M; Müller L; Makoto H
    Mutat Res; 2006 Sep; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Power comparisons for tests of trend in dose-response studies.
    Corcoran C; Mehta C; Senchaudhuri P
    Stat Med; 2000 Nov; 19(22):3037-50. PubMed ID: 11113941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Dual controls, p-value plots, and the multiple testing issue in carcinogenicity studies.
    Selwyn MR
    Environ Health Perspect; 1989 Jul; 82():337-44. PubMed ID: 2676502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Use of non-mammalian species in bioassays for carcinogenicity.
    Bunton TE
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):151-84. PubMed ID: 10353387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the Xpa-deficient transgenic mouse model for short-term carcinogenicity testing: 9-month studies with haloperidol, reserpine, phenacetin, and D-mannitol.
    Lina BA; Woutersen RA; Bruijntjes JP; van Benthem J; van den Berg JA; Monbaliu J; Thoolen BJ; Beems RB; van Kreijl CF
    Toxicol Pathol; 2004; 32(2):192-201. PubMed ID: 15200157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A review of mammalian carcinogenicity study design and potential effects of alternate test procedures on the safety evaluation of food ingredients.
    Hayes AW; Dayan AD; Hall WC; Kodell RL; Williams GM; Waddell WD; Slesinski RS; Kruger CL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Jun; 60(1 Suppl):S1-34. PubMed ID: 21094668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparability of results of postnatal and long-term tests for carcinogenicity.
    Sýkora I; Vortel V
    Neoplasma; 1993; 40(5):321-7. PubMed ID: 8272162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Review of alternative methods of carcinogenicity testing and evaluation of human pharmaceuticals.
    Van Deun K; Van Cauteren H; Vandenberghe J; Canning M; Vanparys P; Coussement W
    Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev; 1997 Nov; 16(4):215-33. PubMed ID: 9608857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.