173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33129916)
1. A retrospective study on EU harmonised classifications for carcinogenicity to guide future research.
Terry C; Yan Z; Corvaro M; Gehen SC
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2021 Feb; 119():104800. PubMed ID: 33129916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Identification of substances with a carcinogenic potential in spray-formulated engine/brake cleaners and lubricating products, available in the European Union (EU) - based on IARC and EU-harmonised classifications and QSAR predictions.
Sørli JB; Frederiksen M; Nikolov NG; Wedebye EB; Hadrup N
Toxicology; 2022 Jul; 477():153261. PubMed ID: 35863487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Guidance for the classification of carcinogens under the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).
McGregor D; Boobis A; Binaglia M; Botham P; Hoffstadt L; Hubbard S; Petry T; Riley A; Schwartz D; Hennes C
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2010 Mar; 40(3):245-85. PubMed ID: 20014893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Classification & Labelling Inventory: role of ECHA and notification requirements.
Schöning G
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2011; 47(2):140-5. PubMed ID: 21709382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The impact of REACH on classification for human health hazards.
Oltmanns J; Bunke D; Jenseit W; Heidorn C
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2014 Nov; 70(2):474-81. PubMed ID: 25128672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The changes in hazard classification and product notification procedures of the new European CLP and Cosmetics Regulations.
de Groot R; Brekelmans P; Herremans J; Meulenbelt J
Clin Toxicol (Phila); 2010 Jan; 48(1):28-33. PubMed ID: 20055632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Weight of evidence analysis of the tumorigenic potential of 1,3-dichloropropene supports a threshold-based risk assessment.
Yan ZJ; Bartels M; Gollapudi B; Driver J; Himmelstein M; Gehen S; Juberg D; van Wesenbeeck I; Terry C; Rasoulpour R
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2020 Nov; 50(10):836-860. PubMed ID: 33528302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Hazard identification, classification, and risk assessment of carcinogens: too much or too little? - Report of an ECETOC workshop.
Felter SP; Boobis AR; Botham PA; Brousse A; Greim H; Hollnagel HM; Sauer UG
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2020 Jan; 50(1):72-95. PubMed ID: 32133908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The CLP Regulation: origin, scope and evolution.
Di Prospero Fanghella P; Catone T
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2011; 47(2):126-31. PubMed ID: 21709380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Information gathering for CLP classification.
Marcello I; Giordano F; Costamagna FM
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2011; 47(2):132-9. PubMed ID: 21709381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Is It Safe to Paint Your Wall White? A Case Study on Titanium Dioxide Classification.
Kähkönen EE
Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2019 Nov; 15(6):1000-1011. PubMed ID: 31286652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Weight of Evidence approach to classify nanomaterials according to the EU Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation criteria.
Basei G; Zabeo A; Rasmussen K; Tsiliki G; Hristozov D
NanoImpact; 2021 Oct; 24():100359. PubMed ID: 35559818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Animal carcinogenicity studies: 1. Poor human predictivity.
Knight A; Bailey J; Balcombe J
Altern Lab Anim; 2006 Feb; 34(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 16522147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 2: Current knowledge of carcinogenesis shows that categorization as a carcinogen or non-carcinogen is not scientifically credible.
Doe JE; Boobis AR; Dellarco V; Fenner-Crisp PA; Moretto A; Pastoor TP; Schoeny RS; Seed JG; Wolf DC
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Apr; 103():124-129. PubMed ID: 30660801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Selection of appropriate tumour data sets for Benchmark Dose Modelling (BMD) and derivation of a Margin of Exposure (MoE) for substances that are genotoxic and carcinogenic: considerations of biological relevance of tumour type, data quality and uncertainty assessment.
Edler L; Hart A; Greaves P; Carthew P; Coulet M; Boobis A; Williams GM; Smith B
Food Chem Toxicol; 2014 Aug; 70():264-89. PubMed ID: 24176677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Threshold and non-threshold chemical carcinogens: A survey of the present regulatory landscape.
Bevan RJ; Harrison PTC
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Aug; 88():291-302. PubMed ID: 28119000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The NTP Report on Carcinogens: A valuable resource for public health, a challenge for regulatory science.
Suarez-Torres JD; Alzate JP; Orjuela-Ramirez ME
J Appl Toxicol; 2020 Jan; 40(1):169-175. PubMed ID: 31466122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
