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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30346596)

  • 1. Important considerations for the validation of QSAR models for in vitro mutagenicity.
    Cayley A; Fowkes A; Williams RV
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):25-32. PubMed ID: 30346596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Predicting Ames Mutagenicity Using Conformal Prediction in the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project.
    Norinder U; Ahlberg E; Carlsson L
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):33-40. PubMed ID: 30541036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of QSAR models for predicting mutagenicity: outcome of the Second Ames/QSAR international challenge project.
    Furuhama A; Kitazawa A; Yao J; Matos Dos Santos CE; Rathman J; Yang C; Ribeiro JV; Cross K; Myatt G; Raitano G; Benfenati E; Jeliazkova N; Saiakhov R; Chakravarti S; Foster RS; Bossa C; Battistelli CL; Benigni R; Sawada T; Wasada H; Hashimoto T; Wu M; Barzilay R; Daga PR; Clark RD; Mestres J; Montero A; Gregori-Puigjané E; Petkov P; Ivanova H; Mekenyan O; Matthews S; Guan D; Spicer J; Lui R; Uesawa Y; Kurosaki K; Matsuzaka Y; Sasaki S; Cronin MTD; Belfield SJ; Firman JW; Spînu N; Qiu M; Keca JM; Gini G; Li T; Tong W; Hong H; Liu Z; Igarashi Y; Yamada H; Sugiyama KI; Honma M
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2023; 34(12):983-1001. PubMed ID: 38047445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Data-based review of QSARs for predicting genotoxicity: the state of the art.
    Benigni R; Bossa C
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 30260416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. In Silico Prediction of Chemically Induced Mutagenicity: A Weight of Evidence Approach Integrating Information from QSAR Models and Read-Across Predictions.
    Mombelli E; Raitano G; Benfenati E
    Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2425():149-183. PubMed ID: 35188632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity.
    Bakhtyari NG; Raitano G; Benfenati E; Martin T; Young D
    J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2013; 31(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 23534394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Performance of In Silico Models for Mutagenicity Prediction of Food Contact Materials.
    Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Vanhaecke T; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
    Toxicol Sci; 2018 Jun; 163(2):632-638. PubMed ID: 29579255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Topological structural alerts modulations of mammalian cell mutagenicity for halogenated derivatives.
    Pérez-Garrido A; Girón-Rodríguez F; Morales Helguera A; Borges F; Combes RD
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2014; 25(1):17-33. PubMed ID: 24283490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations.
    Hillebrecht A; Muster W; Brigo A; Kansy M; Weiser T; Singer T
    Chem Res Toxicol; 2011 Jun; 24(6):843-54. PubMed ID: 21534561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Approaches for externally validated QSAR modelling of Nitrated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon mutagenicity.
    Gramatica P; Pilutti P; Papa E
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2007; 18(1-2):169-78. PubMed ID: 17365967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. In silico modelling of hazard endpoints: current problems and perspectives.
    Mekenyan O; Dimitrov S; Schmieder P; Veith G
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2003; 14(5-6):361-71. PubMed ID: 14758980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Strategy proposal using QSAR models to approach mutagenicity assessment of non intentionally added substances in recycled plastic resins.
    Djelassi I; Lancia P; Thuillier I; Ginestar J; Fioravanzo E; Baleydier A
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2024 May; 187():114597. PubMed ID: 38492856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. QSAR screening of 70,983 REACH substances for genotoxic carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and developmental toxicity in the ChemScreen project.
    Wedebye EB; Dybdahl M; Nikolov NG; Jónsdóttir SÓ; Niemelä JR
    Reprod Toxicol; 2015 Aug; 55():64-72. PubMed ID: 25797653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. In silico prediction of the mutagenicity of nitroaromatic compounds using a novel two-QSAR approach.
    Ding YL; Lyu YC; Leong MK
    Toxicol In Vitro; 2017 Apr; 40():102-114. PubMed ID: 28027902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. QSAR modeling without descriptors using graph convolutional neural networks: the case of mutagenicity prediction.
    Hung C; Gini G
    Mol Divers; 2021 Aug; 25(3):1283-1299. PubMed ID: 34146224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Applicability domains for classification problems: Benchmarking of distance to models for Ames mutagenicity set.
    Sushko I; Novotarskyi S; Körner R; Pandey AK; Cherkasov A; Li J; Gramatica P; Hansen K; Schroeter T; Müller KR; Xi L; Liu H; Yao X; Öberg T; Hormozdiari F; Dao P; Sahinalp C; Todeschini R; Polishchuk P; Artemenko A; Kuz'min V; Martin TM; Young DM; Fourches D; Muratov E; Tropsha A; Baskin I; Horvath D; Marcou G; Muller C; Varnek A; Prokopenko VV; Tetko IV
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Dec; 50(12):2094-111. PubMed ID: 21033656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.