146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27762155)
1. Improving confidence in (Q)SAR predictions under Canada's Chemicals Management Plan - a chemical space approach.
Kulkarni SA; Benfenati E; Barton-Maclaren TS
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2016 Oct; 27(10):851-863. PubMed ID: 27762155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance of (Q)SAR models for predicting Ames mutagenicity of aryl azo and benzidine based compounds.
Kulkarni SA; Barton-Maclaren TS
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2014; 32(1):46-82. PubMed ID: 24598040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for predicting and profiling the carcinogenic potential of chemicals.
Mombelli E; Devillers J
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Oct; 21(7-8):731-52. PubMed ID: 21120759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. (Q)SARs: gatekeepers against risk on chemicals?
Hulzebos EM; Posthumus R
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2003 Aug; 14(4):285-316. PubMed ID: 14506871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox for the profiling of estrogen receptor binding affinities.
Mombelli E
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2012 Jan; 23(1-2):37-57. PubMed ID: 22014213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Development and application of consensus
Collins SP; Mailloux B; Kulkarni S; Gagné M; Long AS; Barton-Maclaren TS
Front Pharmacol; 2024; 15():1307905. PubMed ID: 38333007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Using chemical categories to fill data gaps in hazard assessment.
van Leeuwen K; Schultz TW; Henry T; Diderich B; Veith GD
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2009; 20(3-4):207-20. PubMed ID: 19544189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Perspective of predictive toxicity assessment of in vivo repeated dose toxicity using structural activity relationship].
Ono A
Kokuritsu Iyakuhin Shokuhin Eisei Kenkyusho Hokoku; 2010; (128):44-9. PubMed ID: 21381395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Nano(Q)SAR: Challenges, pitfalls and perspectives.
Tantra R; Oksel C; Puzyn T; Wang J; Robinson KN; Wang XZ; Ma CY; Wilkins T
Nanotoxicology; 2015; 9(5):636-42. PubMed ID: 25211549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling.
Valerio LG; Arvidson KB; Chanderbhan RF; Contrera JF
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2007 Jul; 222(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 17482223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. On the number of EINECS compounds that can be covered by (Q)SAR models for acute toxicity.
Zvinavashe E; Murk AJ; Rietjens IM
Toxicol Lett; 2009 Jan; 184(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 19041378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparative PBT screening using (Q)SAR tools within REACH legislation.
Zachary M; Greenway GM
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2009; 20(1-2):145-57. PubMed ID: 19343589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The OECD QSAR Toolbox Starts Its Second Decade.
Schultz TW; Diderich R; Kuseva CD; Mekenyan OG
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1800():55-77. PubMed ID: 29934887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integrated approach to assess the domain of applicability of some commercial (Q)SAR models.
Kulkarni SA; Zhu J
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2008; 19(1-2):39-54. PubMed ID: 18311633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system.
Combes R; Barratt M; Balls M
Altern Lab Anim; 2003; 31(1):7-19. PubMed ID: 16221040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. SAR/QSAR methods in public health practice.
Demchuk E; Ruiz P; Chou S; Fowler BA
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2011 Jul; 254(2):192-7. PubMed ID: 21034766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Computer models versus reality: how well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization potential of a substance.
Teubner W; Mehling A; Schuster PX; Guth K; Worth A; Burton J; van Ravenzwaay B; Landsiedel R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Dec; 67(3):468-85. PubMed ID: 24090701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Building on a solid foundation: SAR and QSAR as a fundamental strategy to reduce animal testing.
Sullivan KM; Manuppello JR; Willett CE
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2014; 25(5):357-65. PubMed ID: 24773450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. FAIRification of nanosafety data to improve applicability of (Q)SAR approaches: A case study on
Bossa C; Andreoli C; Bakker M; Barone F; De Angelis I; Jeliazkova N; Nymark P; Battistelli CL
Comput Toxicol; 2021 Nov; 20():100190. PubMed ID: 34820591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
