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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3470540)

  • 1. Cancer risk-assessment models: anticipated contributions from biochemical epidemiology.
    Alavanja M; Aron J; Brown C; Chandler J
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1987 Apr; 78(4):633-43. PubMed ID: 3470540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Epidemiology and the inference of cancer mechanisms.
    Hoel DG
    Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1985 May; 67():199-203. PubMed ID: 4047148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Understanding population and individual risk assessment: the case of polychlorinated biphenyls.
    Shields PG
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2006 May; 15(5):830-9. PubMed ID: 16702358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Environmental and chemical carcinogenesis.
    Wogan GN; Hecht SS; Felton JS; Conney AH; Loeb LA
    Semin Cancer Biol; 2004 Dec; 14(6):473-86. PubMed ID: 15489140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Chloroform mode of action: implications for cancer risk assessment.
    Golden RJ; Holm SE; Robinson DE; Julkunen PH; Reese EA
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1997 Oct; 26(2):142-55. PubMed ID: 9356278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Epidemiologic evidence for assessing the carcinogenicity of acrylamide.
    Erdreich LS; Friedman MA
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2004 Apr; 39(2):150-7. PubMed ID: 15041146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A cancer risk assessment of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: application of the new U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines.
    Doull J; Cattley R; Elcombe C; Lake BG; Swenberg J; Wilkinson C; Williams G; van Gemert M
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1999 Jun; 29(3):327-57. PubMed ID: 10388618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Identification, characterization, and control of potential human carcinogens: a framework for Federal decision-making.
    Calkins DR; Dixon RL; Gerber CR; Zarin D; Omenn GS
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1980 Jan; 64(1):169-76. PubMed ID: 6928042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology
    J Clin Oncol; 2003 Jun; 21(12):2397-406. PubMed ID: 12692171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A simple approach to performing quantitative cancer risk assessment using published results from occupational epidemiology studies.
    van Wijngaarden E; Hertz-Picciotto I
    Sci Total Environ; 2004 Oct; 332(1-3):81-7. PubMed ID: 15336893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Symmetry, identifiability, and prediction uncertainties in multistage clonal expansion (MSCE) models of carcinogenesis.
    Cox LA; Huber WA
    Risk Anal; 2007 Dec; 27(6):1441-53. PubMed ID: 18093045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Regulatory cancer risk assessment based on a quick estimate of a benchmark dose derived from the maximum tolerated dose.
    Gaylor DW; Swirsky Gold L
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Dec; 28(3):222-5. PubMed ID: 10049793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Role and limitations of epidemiology in establishing a causal association.
    Franco EL; Correa P; Santella RM; Wu X; Goodman SN; Petersen GM
    Semin Cancer Biol; 2004 Dec; 14(6):413-26. PubMed ID: 15489134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Incorporating additional biological phenomena into two-stage cancer models.
    Sielken RL; Bretzlaff RS; Stevenson DE
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1994; 387():237-60. PubMed ID: 7972250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Challenges to default assumptions stimulate comprehensive realism as a new tier in quantitative cancer risk assessment.
    Sielken RL; Bretzlaff RS; Stevenson DE
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Apr; 21(2):270-80. PubMed ID: 7644717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. New developments in exposure assessment: the impact on the practice of health risk assessment and epidemiological studies.
    Nieuwenhuijsen M; Paustenbach D; Duarte-Davidson R
    Environ Int; 2006 Dec; 32(8):996-1009. PubMed ID: 16875734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma.
    Berman DW; Crump KS
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2008; 38 Suppl 1():1-47. PubMed ID: 18671157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cancer risk assessment at the crossroads: the need to turn to a biological approach.
    Clayson DB; Iverson F
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1996 Aug; 24(1 Pt 1):45-59. PubMed ID: 8921545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bioassay designs for validating biologically based mathematical models of carcinogenesis for risk assessment.
    Kodell RL
    Drug Metab Rev; 1996; 28(1-2):219-23. PubMed ID: 8744598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Introduction and overview. Perinatal carcinogenesis: growing a node for epidemiology, risk management, and animal studies.
    Anderson LM
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2004 Sep; 199(2):85-90. PubMed ID: 15313581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.