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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26248005)

  • 21. Distinguishing between expert and statistical systems for application under ICH M7.
    Barber C; Hanser T; Judson P; Williams R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Mar; 84():124-130. PubMed ID: 28057482
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Retrospective application of ICH M7 to anti-hypertensive drugs in Brazil: Risk assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities.
    Waechter F; Falcao Oliveira AA; Borges Shimada AL; Bernes Junior E; de Souza Nascimento E
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2024 Aug; 151():105669. PubMed ID: 38936796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Improvement of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) tools for predicting Ames mutagenicity: outcomes of the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project.
    Honma M; Kitazawa A; Cayley A; Williams RV; Barber C; Hanser T; Saiakhov R; Chakravarti S; Myatt GJ; Cross KP; Benfenati E; Raitano G; Mekenyan O; Petkov P; Bossa C; Benigni R; Battistelli CL; Giuliani A; Tcheremenskaia O; DeMeo C; Norinder U; Koga H; Jose C; Jeliazkova N; Kochev N; Paskaleva V; Yang C; Daga PR; Clark RD; Rathman J
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 30357358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The importance of expert review to clarify ambiguous situations for (Q)SAR predictions under ICH M7.
    Foster RS; Fowkes A; Cayley A; Thresher A; Werner AD; Barber CG; Kocks G; Tennant RE; Williams RV; Kane S; Stalford SA
    Genes Environ; 2020; 42():27. PubMed ID: 32983286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. International regulatory requirements for genotoxicity testing for pharmaceuticals used in human medicine, and their impurities and metabolites.
    Galloway SM
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2017 Jun; 58(5):296-324. PubMed ID: 28299826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Characterization of false positive, contaminant-driven mutagenicity in impurities associated with the sotorasib drug substance.
    Coppi A; Davies R; Wegesser T; Ishida K; Karmel J; Han J; Aiello F; Xie Y; Corbett MT; Parsons AT; Monticello TM; Minocherhomji S
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2022 Jun; 131():105162. PubMed ID: 35331777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Mutagenicity assessment of two potential impurities in preparations of 5-amino-2,4,6 triiodoisophthalic acid, a key intermediate in the synthesis of the iodinated contrast agent iopamidol.
    Rossi S; Bussi S; Bonafè R; Incardona C; Vurro E; Visigalli M; Buonsanti F; Fretta R
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2024 Jan; 893():503720. PubMed ID: 38272634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. In silico assessment of genotoxicity. Combinations of sensitive structural alerts minimize false negative predictions for all genotoxicity endpoints and can single out chemicals for which experimentation can be avoided.
    Benigni R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2021 Nov; 126():105042. PubMed ID: 34506881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Managing emerging mutagenicity risks: Late stage mutagenic impurity control within the atovaquone second generation synthesis.
    Urquhart MWJ; Bardsley B; Edwards AJ; Giddings A; Griva E; Harvey J; Hermitage S; King F; Leach S; Lesurf C; McKinlay C; Oxley P; Pham TN; Simpson A; Smith E; Stevenson N; Wade C; White A; Wooster N
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Nov; 99():22-32. PubMed ID: 30118726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Toward regulatory acceptance and improving the prediction confidence of in silico approaches: a case study of genotoxicity.
    Tcheremenskaia O; Benigni R
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2021 Aug; 17(8):987-1005. PubMed ID: 34078212
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. An assessment of mutagenicity of chemical substances by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship.
    Honma M
    Genes Environ; 2020; 42():23. PubMed ID: 32626544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Quantitative weight of evidence method for combining predictions of quantitative structure-activity relationship models.
    Tintó-Moliner A; Martin M
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2020 Apr; 31(4):261-279. PubMed ID: 32065534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Multiple Instance Learning Improves Ames Mutagenicity Prediction for Problematic Molecular Species.
    Feeney SV; Lui R; Guan D; Matthews S
    Chem Res Toxicol; 2023 Aug; 36(8):1227-1237. PubMed ID: 37477941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Genetic toxicology in silico protocol.
    Hasselgren C; Ahlberg E; Akahori Y; Amberg A; Anger LT; Atienzar F; Auerbach S; Beilke L; Bellion P; Benigni R; Bercu J; Booth ED; Bower D; Brigo A; Cammerer Z; Cronin MTD; Crooks I; Cross KP; Custer L; Dobo K; Doktorova T; Faulkner D; Ford KA; Fortin MC; Frericks M; Gad-McDonald SE; Gellatly N; Gerets H; Gervais V; Glowienke S; Van Gompel J; Harvey JS; Hillegass J; Honma M; Hsieh JH; Hsu CW; Barton-Maclaren TS; Johnson C; Jolly R; Jones D; Kemper R; Kenyon MO; Kruhlak NL; Kulkarni SA; Kümmerer K; Leavitt P; Masten S; Miller S; Moudgal C; Muster W; Paulino A; Lo Piparo E; Powley M; Quigley DP; Reddy MV; Richarz AN; Schilter B; Snyder RD; Stavitskaya L; Stidl R; Szabo DT; Teasdale A; Tice RR; Trejo-Martin A; Vuorinen A; Wall BA; Watts P; White AT; Wichard J; Witt KL; Woolley A; Woolley D; Zwickl C; Myatt GJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Oct; 107():104403. PubMed ID: 31195068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Integrated in silico and in vitro genotoxicity assessment of thirteen data-poor substances.
    Tran YK; Buick JK; Keir JLA; Williams A; Swartz CD; Recio L; White PA; Lambert IB; Yauk CL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Oct; 107():104427. PubMed ID: 31336127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. (Q)SAR tools for the prediction of mutagenic properties: Are they ready for application in pesticide regulation?
    Herrmann K; Holzwarth A; Rime S; Fischer BC; Kneuer C
    Pest Manag Sci; 2020 Oct; 76(10):3316-3325. PubMed ID: 32223060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. (Q)SAR tools for priority setting: A case study with printed paper and board food contact material substances.
    Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Manganelli S; Braeken E; Ates G; Vanhaecke T; Van Miert S; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Apr; 102():109-119. PubMed ID: 28163056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Predicting the mutagenic potential of chemicals in tobacco products using
    Goel R; Valerio LG
    Toxicol Mech Methods; 2020 Nov; 30(9):672-678. PubMed ID: 32752976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Evaluation of a statistics-based Ames mutagenicity QSAR model and interpretation of the results obtained.
    Barber C; Cayley A; Hanser T; Harding A; Heghes C; Vessey JD; Werner S; Weiner SK; Wichard J; Giddings A; Glowienke S; Parenty A; Brigo A; Spirkl HP; Amberg A; Kemper R; Greene N
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Apr; 76():7-20. PubMed ID: 26708083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.