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 *

205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3077082)

  • 21. Further evaluation of COMPACT, the molecular orbital approach for the prospective safety evaluation of chemicals.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Mutat Res; 1998 Jan; 412(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 9508363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Computer-aided rodent carcinogenicity prediction.
    Lagunin AA; Dearden JC; Filimonov DA; Poroikov VV
    Mutat Res; 2005 Oct; 586(2):138-46. PubMed ID: 16112600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation assay: review of the methods and results.
    Mauthe RJ; Gibson DP; Bunch RT; Custer L
    Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():138-46. PubMed ID: 11695550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Integrated approach to testing and assessment for predicting rodent genotoxic carcinogenicity.
    Petkov PI; Schultz TW; Donner EM; Honma M; Morita T; Hamada S; Wakata A; Mishima M; Maniwa J; Todorov M; Kaloyanova E; Kotov S; Mekenyan OG
    J Appl Toxicol; 2016 Dec; 36(12):1536-1550. PubMed ID: 27225589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Quantification of the predictivity of some short-term assays for carcinogenicity in rodents.
    Klopman G; Rosenkranz HS
    Mutat Res; 1991 Dec; 253(3):237-40. PubMed ID: 1720198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Evaluation of the yeast DEL assay with 10 compounds selected by the International Program on Chemical Safety for the evaluation of short-term tests for carcinogens.
    Carls N; Schiestl RH
    Mutat Res; 1994 Mar; 320(4):293-303. PubMed ID: 7508555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A combined COMPACT and HazardExpert study of 40 chemicals for which information on mutagenicity and carcinogenicity is known, including the results of human epidemiological studies.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Oct; 17(10):577-86. PubMed ID: 9821022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The challenge of testing chemicals for potential carcinogenicity using multiple short-term assays: an analysis of a proposed test battery for hair dyes.
    Rosenkranz HS; Cunningham SL; Mermelstein R; Cunningham AR
    Mutat Res; 2007 Sep; 633(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 17625954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. In Vitro-In Vivo Carcinogenicity.
    Steinberg P
    Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol; 2017; 157():81-96. PubMed ID: 27506831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Animal carcinogenicity studies: implications for the REACH system.
    Knight A; Bailey J; Balcombe J
    Altern Lab Anim; 2006 Mar; 34 Suppl 1():139-47. PubMed ID: 16555967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity for 44 chemicals: results.
    Ashby J; Tennant RW
    Mutagenesis; 1994 Jan; 9(1):7-15. PubMed ID: 8208133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Reappraisal of eight representative carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds in a new medium-term rat liver bioassay using D-galactosamine.
    Kim HC; Cha SW; Ha CS; Roh JK; Lee YS; Furukawa F; Nishikawa A; Takahashi M
    Cancer Lett; 1996 Jun; 104(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 8640751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Predictive values of traditional animal bioassay studies for human perinatal carcinogenesis risk determination.
    Anderson LM
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2004 Sep; 199(2):162-74. PubMed ID: 15313588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Evaluation of reduced protocols for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals: report of a joint EPA/NIEHS workshop.
    Lai DY; Baetcke KP; Vu VT; Cotruvo JA; Eustis SL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Apr; 19(2):183-201. PubMed ID: 8041916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A review of the ability of non-clinical testing strategies currently applied to drugs to detect known human carcinogens.
    Scales MD; Damment SJ; Gatehouse DG
    Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev; 1992; 11(2):111-22. PubMed ID: 1637961
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
    Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The Carcinogenome Project: In Vitro Gene Expression Profiling of Chemical Perturbations to Predict Long-Term Carcinogenicity.
    Li A; Lu X; Natoli T; Bittker J; Sipes NS; Subramanian A; Auerbach S; Sherr DH; Monti S
    Environ Health Perspect; 2019 Apr; 127(4):47002. PubMed ID: 30964323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Mechanisms of hormonal carcinogenesis in the p53+/- hemizygous knockout mouse: studies with diethylstilbestrol.
    Carmichael PL; Mills JJ; Campbell M; Basu M; Caldwell J
    Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():155-60. PubMed ID: 11695552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Novel naïve Bayes classification models for predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals.
    Zhang H; Cao ZX; Li M; Li YZ; Peng C
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2016 Nov; 97():141-149. PubMed ID: 27597133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Applicability of a gene expression based prediction method to SD and Wistar rats: an example of CARCINOscreen®.
    Matsumoto H; Saito F; Takeyoshi M
    J Toxicol Sci; 2015 Dec; 40(6):805-7. PubMed ID: 26558461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.