90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2593175)
1. Comparison of different computerized classification methods for predicting carcinogenicity from short-term test results.
Benigni R; Pellizzone G; Giuliani A
J Toxicol Environ Health; 1989; 28(4):427-44. PubMed ID: 2593175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Which rules for assembling short-term test batteries to predict carcinogenicity?
Benigni R; Giuliani A
Mol Toxicol; 1987; 1(2-3):143-66. PubMed ID: 3449755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A comparison of false positive rates of peto and poly-3 methods for long-term carcinogenicity data analysis using multiple comparison adjustment method suggested by Lin and Rahman.
Rahman MA; Lin KK
J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(5):949-58. PubMed ID: 18781527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The ability of short-term tests to predict carcinogenicity can be summarized in a single index.
Benigni R
J Toxicol Environ Health; 1991 Sep; 34(1):27-37. PubMed ID: 1890692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Characterizing and predicting carcinogenicity and mode of action using conventional and toxicogenomics methods.
Waters MD; Jackson M; Lea I
Mutat Res; 2010 Dec; 705(3):184-200. PubMed ID: 20399889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Interrelationships among carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, acute toxicity, and chemical structure in a genotoxicity data base.
Benigni R; Andreoli C; Giuliani A
J Toxicol Environ Health; 1989; 27(1):1-20. PubMed ID: 2724362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Animal carcinogenicity studies: implications for the REACH system.
Knight A; Bailey J; Balcombe J
Altern Lab Anim; 2006 Mar; 34 Suppl 1():139-47. PubMed ID: 16555967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Rational approach to the evaluation of short-term tests: analysis of a homogeneous data base.
Benigni R; Giuliani A
J Toxicol Environ Health; 1985; 16(3-4):333-53. PubMed ID: 4087307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity utilizing a battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests.
Kim BS; Margolin BH
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 34(4):297-304. PubMed ID: 10618179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Estimation of k for the poly-k test with application to animal carcinogenicity studies.
Moon H; Ahn H; Kodell RL; Lee JJ
Stat Med; 2003 Aug; 22(16):2619-36. PubMed ID: 12898548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. [Efficiency of evaluating the carcinogenicity of chemical substances in short-term tests and the SAR model].
Tarasov VA; Tsarenko NA; Mel'nik VA; Mustafaev ON; Makedonov GP; Tarasov AV
Genetika; 2009 Dec; 45(12):1674-84. PubMed ID: 20198980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Identification of potential biomarkers of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells by cDNA microarray analysis.
Kim JY; Kwon J; Kim JE; Koh WS; Chung MK; Yoon S; Song CW; Lee M
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2005; 45(1):80-9. PubMed ID: 15612046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software.
Matthews EJ; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Dec; 28(3):242-64. PubMed ID: 10049796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Computer-aided rodent carcinogenicity prediction.
Lagunin AA; Dearden JC; Filimonov DA; Poroikov VV
Mutat Res; 2005 Oct; 586(2):138-46. PubMed ID: 16112600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
