170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28163056)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. Establishing best practise in the application of expert review of mutagenicity under ICH M7.
Barber C; Amberg A; Custer L; Dobo KL; Glowienke S; Van Gompel J; Gutsell S; Harvey J; Honma M; Kenyon MO; Kruhlak N; Muster W; Stavitskaya L; Teasdale A; Vessey J; Wichard J
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Oct; 73(1):367-77. PubMed ID: 26248005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. (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]
25. Validation of the (Q)SAR combination approach for mutagenicity prediction of flavor chemicals.
Ono A; Takahashi M; Hirose A; Kamata E; Kawamura T; Yamazaki T; Sato K; Yamada M; Fukumoto T; Okamura H; Mirokuji Y; Honma M
Food Chem Toxicol; 2012 May; 50(5):1538-46. PubMed ID: 22369964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Mutagenicity assessment of food contact material migrates with the Ames MPF assay.
Rainer B; Mayrhofer E; Redl M; Dolak I; Mislivececk D; Czerny T; Kirchnawy C; Marin-Kuan M; Schilter B; Tacker M
Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess; 2019 Sep; 36(9):1419-1432. PubMed ID: 31287381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A large comparison of integrated SAR/QSAR models of the Ames test for mutagenicity
Benfenati E; Golbamaki A; Raitano G; Roncaglioni A; Manganelli S; Lemke F; Norinder U; Lo Piparo E; Honma M; Manganaro A; Gini G
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):591-611. PubMed ID: 30052064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Searching for an enhanced predictive tool for mutagenicity.
Klopman G; Zhu H; Fuller MA; Saiakhov RD
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004 Aug; 15(4):251-63. PubMed ID: 15370416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Prediction of genotoxic potential of cosmetic ingredients by an in silico battery system consisting of a combination of an expert rule-based system and a statistics-based system.
Aiba née Kaneko M; Hirota M; Kouzuki H; Mori M
J Toxicol Sci; 2015 Feb; 40(1):77-98. PubMed ID: 25743748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Transitioning to composite bacterial mutagenicity models in ICH M7 (Q)SAR analyses.
Landry C; Kim MT; Kruhlak NL; Cross KP; Saiakhov R; Chakravarti S; Stavitskaya L
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Dec; 109():104488. PubMed ID: 31586682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A practice of expert review by read-across using QSAR Toolbox.
Fukuchi J; Kitazawa A; Hirabayashi K; Honma M
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 30690463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Prioritization before risk assessment: The viability of uncertain data on food contact materials.
Pieke EN; Granby K; Teste B; Smedsgaard J; Rivière G
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Aug; 97():134-143. PubMed ID: 29932981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. QSAR models to predict mutagenicity of acrylates, methacrylates and alpha,beta-unsaturated carbonyl compounds.
Pérez-Garrido A; Helguera AM; Rodríguez FG; Cordeiro MN
Dent Mater; 2010 May; 26(5):397-415. PubMed ID: 20122717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances.
Simon-Hettich B; Rothfuss A; Steger-Hartmann T
Toxicology; 2006 Jul; 224(1-2):156-62. PubMed ID: 16707203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Application of in silico modelling to estimate toxicity of migrating substances from food packaging.
Price N; Chaudhry Q
Food Chem Toxicol; 2014 Sep; 71():136-41. PubMed ID: 24923263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Alternative strategies for carcinogenicity assessment: an efficient and simplified approach based on in vitro mutagenicity and cell transformation assays.
Benigni R; Bossa C
Mutagenesis; 2011 May; 26(3):455-60. PubMed ID: 21398403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The Consultancy Activity on In Silico Models for Genotoxic Prediction of Pharmaceutical Impurities.
Pavan M; Kovarich S; Bassan A; Broccardo L; Yang C; Fioravanzo E
Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():511-29. PubMed ID: 27311479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. An overview of structure-activity relationships as an alternative to testing in animals for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, dermal and eye irritation, and acute oral toxicity.
Enslein K
Toxicol Ind Health; 1988 Dec; 4(4):479-98. PubMed ID: 3188045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. In silico tools and transcriptomics analyses in the mutagenicity assessment of cosmetic ingredients: a proof-of-principle on how to add weight to the evidence.
Ates G; Raitano G; Heymans A; Van Bossuyt M; Vanparys P; Mertens B; Chesne C; Roncaglioni A; Milushev D; Benfenati E; Rogiers V; Doktorova TY
Mutagenesis; 2016 Jul; 31(4):453-61. PubMed ID: 26980085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. (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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
