322 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2707207)
1. Summary of carcinogenic potency and positivity for 492 rodent carcinogens in the carcinogenic potency database.
Gold LS; Slone TH; Bernstein L
Environ Health Perspect; 1989 Feb; 79():259-72. PubMed ID: 2707207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Prediction of carcinogenicity from two versus four sex-species groups in the carcinogenic potency database.
Gold LS; Slone TH
J Toxicol Environ Health; 1993 May; 39(1):143-57. PubMed ID: 8492327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Carcinogenic Potency Database: analyses of 4000 chronic animal cancer experiments published in the general literature and by the U.S. National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program.
Gold LS; Slone TH; Manley NB; Garfinkel GB; Hudes ES; Rohrbach L; Ames BN
Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Dec; 96():11-5. PubMed ID: 1820251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB): results of animal bioassays published in the general literature in 1993 to 1994 and by the National Toxicology Program in 1995 to 1996.
Gold LS; Manley NB; Slone TH; Rohrbach L
Environ Health Perspect; 1999 Aug; 107 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):527-600. PubMed ID: 10421768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Association between carcinogenic potency and tumor pathology in rodent carcinogenesis bioassays.
Gold LS; Ward JM; Bernstein L; Stern B
Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1986 May; 6(4):677-90. PubMed ID: 3710036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. ICPEMC Working Paper 1/2. A multi-factor ranking scheme for comparing the carcinogenic activity of chemicals.
Nesnow S
Mutat Res; 1990 Sep; 239(2):83-115. PubMed ID: 2385240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Multifactor potency scheme for comparing the carcinogenic activity of chemicals.
Nesnow S
Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Dec; 96():17-21. PubMed ID: 1820261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of target organs of carcinogenicity for mutagenic and non-mutagenic chemicals.
Gold LS; Slone TH; Stern BR; Bernstein L
Mutat Res; 1993 Mar; 286(1):75-100. PubMed ID: 7678909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Chemicals classified by IARC: their potency in tests for carcinogenicity in rodents and their genotoxicity and acute toxicity.
McGregor DB
IARC Sci Publ; 1992; (116):323-52. PubMed ID: 1428089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. What do animal cancer tests tell us about human cancer risk?: Overview of analyses of the carcinogenic potency database.
Gold LS; Slone TH; Ames BN
Drug Metab Rev; 1998 May; 30(2):359-404. PubMed ID: 9606609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Heterocyclic amines formed by cooking food: comparison of bioassay results with other chemicals in the Carcinogenic Potency Database.
Gold LS; Slone TH; Manley NB; Ames BN
Cancer Lett; 1994 Aug; 83(1-2):21-9. PubMed ID: 8062218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens.
Vogel EW; Graf U; Frei HJ; Nivard MM
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):427-70. PubMed ID: 10353398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals in humans from rodent bioassay data.
Goodman G; Wilson R
Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Aug; 94():195-218. PubMed ID: 1954931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals I. Alternative toxicity measures as an estimator of carcinogenic potency.
Venkatapathy R; Wang CY; Bruce RM; Moudgal C
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2009 Jan; 234(2):209-21. PubMed ID: 18977375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An overview of the report: correlation between carcinogenic potency and the maximum tolerated dose: implications for risk assessment.
Krewski D; Gaylor DW; Soms AP; Szyszkowicz M
Risk Anal; 1993 Aug; 13(4):383-98. PubMed ID: 8234946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A carcinogenic potency database of the standardized results of animal bioassays.
Gold LS; Sawyer CB; Magaw R; Backman GM; de Veciana M; Levinson R; Hooper NK; Havender WR; Bernstein L; Peto R
Environ Health Perspect; 1984 Dec; 58():9-319. PubMed ID: 6525996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Further development of a multifactor potency scheme for chemical carcinogens.
Nesnow S
Cancer Detect Prev; 1995; 19(6):465-71. PubMed ID: 8925515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
