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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26053359)

  • 1. Selection bias correction for species sensitivity distribution modeling and hazardous concentration estimation.
    Fox DR
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2015 Nov; 34(11):2555-63. PubMed ID: 26053359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A Bayesian approach for determining the no effect concentration and hazardous concentration in ecotoxicology.
    Fox DR
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2010 Feb; 73(2):123-31. PubMed ID: 19836077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Competing statistical methods for the fitting of normal species sensitivity distributions: recommendations for practitioners.
    Hickey GL; Craig PS
    Risk Anal; 2012 Jul; 32(7):1232-43. PubMed ID: 22050459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Hierarchical modelling of species sensitivity distribution: development and application to the case of diatoms exposed to several herbicides.
    Kon Kam King G; Larras F; Charles S; Delignette-Muller ML
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2015 Apr; 114():212-21. PubMed ID: 25656423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Time-dependent species sensitivity distributions.
    Fox DR; Billoir E
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Feb; 32(2):378-83. PubMed ID: 23161611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Better bootstrap estimation of hazardous concentration thresholds for aquatic assemblages.
    Grist EP; Leung KM; Wheeler JR; Crane M
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2002 Jul; 21(7):1515-24. PubMed ID: 12109754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. On the application of loss functions in determining assessment factors for ecological risk.
    Hickey GL; Craig PS; Hart A
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2009 Feb; 72(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 18691758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. SSDs Revisited: Part I-A Framework for Sample Size Guidance on Species Sensitivity Distribution Analysis.
    Carr GJ; Belanger SE
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Jul; 38(7):1514-1525. PubMed ID: 30994946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Species sensitivity distribution for pentachlorophenol to aquatic organisms based on interval ecotoxicological data.
    Zhao J; Zhang R
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2017 Nov; 145():193-199. PubMed ID: 28734222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Ecological risk of anthropogenic pollutants to reptiles: Evaluating assumptions of sensitivity and exposure.
    Weir SM; Suski JG; Salice CJ
    Environ Pollut; 2010 Dec; 158(12):3596-606. PubMed ID: 20855139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Constructing Time-Resolved Species Sensitivity Distributions Using a Hierarchical Toxico-Dynamic Model.
    Kon Kam King G; Delignette-Muller ML; Kefford BJ; Piscart C; Charles S
    Environ Sci Technol; 2015 Oct; 49(20):12465-73. PubMed ID: 26406398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. MOSAIC_SSD: a new web tool for species sensitivity distribution to include censored data by maximum likelihood.
    Kon Kam King G; Veber P; Charles S; Delignette-Muller ML
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2014 Sep; 33(9):2133-9. PubMed ID: 24863265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Physiological modes of action across species and toxicants: the key to predictive ecotoxicology.
    Ashauer R; Jager T
    Environ Sci Process Impacts; 2018 Jan; 20(1):48-57. PubMed ID: 29090718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Species sensitivity distribution evaluation for chronic nickel toxicity to marine organisms.
    DeForest DK; Schlekat CE
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2013 Oct; 9(4):580-9. PubMed ID: 23553986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Uncertainty of the hazardous concentration and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions.
    Aldenberg T; Jaworska JS
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2000 May; 46(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 10805987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. (Q)SARs to predict environmental toxicities: current status and future needs.
    Cronin MT
    Environ Sci Process Impacts; 2017 Mar; 19(3):213-220. PubMed ID: 28243641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the integrated testing strategy for PNEC derivation under REACH.
    May M; Drost W; Germer S; Juffernholz T; Hahn S
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Jul; 78():59-65. PubMed ID: 27103318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Estimating population-level HC5 for copper using a species sensitivity distribution approach.
    Iwasaki Y; Hayashi TI; Kamo M
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Jun; 32(6):1396-402. PubMed ID: 23417717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing the sensitivity of meta-analysis to selection bias: a multiple imputation approach.
    Carpenter J; Rücker G; Schwarzer G
    Biometrics; 2011 Sep; 67(3):1066-72. PubMed ID: 21039395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Improving substance information in USEtox
    Saouter E; Aschberger K; Fantke P; Hauschild MZ; Bopp SK; Kienzler A; Paini A; Pant R; Secchi M; Sala S
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2017 Dec; 36(12):3450-3462. PubMed ID: 28618056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.