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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30994946)

  • 1. SSDs Revisited: Part I-A Framework for Sample Size Guidance on Species Sensitivity Distribution Analysis.
    Carr GJ; Belanger SE
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Jul; 38(7):1514-1525. PubMed ID: 30994946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. SSDs revisited: part II-practical considerations in the development and use of application factors applied to species sensitivity distributions.
    Belanger SE; Carr GJ
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Jul; 38(7):1526-1541. PubMed ID: 30994956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Species Sensitivity Distribution estimation from uncertain (QSAR-based) effects data.
    Aldenberg T; Rorije E
    Altern Lab Anim; 2013 Mar; 41(1):19-31. PubMed ID: 23614542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Species sensitivity distribution for chlorpyrifos to aquatic organisms: Model choice and sample size.
    Zhao J; Chen B
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2016 Mar; 125():161-9. PubMed ID: 26701839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Recent Developments in Species Sensitivity Distribution Modeling.
    Fox DR; van Dam RA; Fisher R; Batley GE; Tillmanns AR; Thorley J; Schwarz CJ; Spry DJ; McTavish K
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2021 Feb; 40(2):293-308. PubMed ID: 33170526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Competing statistical methods for the fitting of normal species sensitivity distributions: recommendations for practitioners.
    Hickey GL; Craig PS
    Risk Anal; 2012 Jul; 32(7):1232-43. PubMed ID: 22050459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Parametric and nonparametric population methods: their comparative performance in analysing a clinical dataset and two Monte Carlo simulation studies.
    Bustad A; Terziivanov D; Leary R; Port R; Schumitzky A; Jelliffe R
    Clin Pharmacokinet; 2006; 45(4):365-83. PubMed ID: 16584284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Development and application of the SSD approach in scientific case studies for ecological risk assessment.
    Del Signore A; Hendriks AJ; Lenders HJ; Leuven RS; Breure AM
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2016 Sep; 35(9):2149-61. PubMed ID: 27144499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Augmenting aquatic species sensitivity distributions with interspecies toxicity estimation models.
    Awkerman JA; Raimondo S; Jackson CR; Barron MG
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2014 Mar; 33(3):688-95. PubMed ID: 24214839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Development of algal interspecies correlation estimation models for chemical hazard assessment.
    Brill JL; Belanger SE; Chaney JG; Dyer SD; Raimondo S; Barron MG; Pittinger CA
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2016 Sep; 35(9):2368-78. PubMed ID: 26792236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A probabilistic method for species sensitivity distributions taking into account the inherent uncertainty and variability of effects to estimate environmental risk.
    Gottschalk F; Nowack B
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2013 Jan; 9(1):79-86. PubMed ID: 22745057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Selection bias correction for species sensitivity distribution modeling and hazardous concentration estimation.
    Fox DR
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2015 Nov; 34(11):2555-63. PubMed ID: 26053359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. On the impact of sample size on median lethal concentration estimation in acute fish toxicity testing: Is n = 7/group enough?
    Carr GJ; Bailer AJ; Rawlings JM; Belanger SE
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2018 Jun; 37(6):1565-1578. PubMed ID: 29350430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A Bayesian approach for determining the no effect concentration and hazardous concentration in ecotoxicology.
    Fox DR
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2010 Feb; 73(2):123-31. PubMed ID: 19836077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Better bootstrap estimation of hazardous concentration thresholds for aquatic assemblages.
    Grist EP; Leung KM; Wheeler JR; Crane M
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2002 Jul; 21(7):1515-24. PubMed ID: 12109754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. QSAR-Based Estimation of Species Sensitivity Distribution Parameters: An Exploratory Investigation.
    Hoondert RPJ; Oldenkamp R; de Zwart D; van de Meent D; Posthuma L
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Dec; 38(12):2764-2770. PubMed ID: 31553801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Risk assessment using the species sensitivity distribution method: data quality versus data quantity.
    Dowse R; Tang D; Palmer CG; Kefford BJ
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Jun; 32(6):1360-9. PubMed ID: 23440771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Systematic Consideration of Parameter Uncertainty and Variability in Probabilistic Species Sensitivity Distributions.
    Wigger H; Kawecki D; Nowack B; Adam V
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2020 Mar; 16(2):211-222. PubMed ID: 31535755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Future needs and recommendations in the development of species sensitivity distributions: Estimating toxicity thresholds for aquatic ecological communities and assessing impacts of chemical exposures.
    Belanger S; Barron M; Craig P; Dyer S; Galay-Burgos M; Hamer M; Marshall S; Posthuma L; Raimondo S; Whitehouse P
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2017 Jul; 13(4):664-674. PubMed ID: 27531323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.