171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35404469)
1. Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (I): Deriving a point of departure for risk assessment.
Natsch A; Gerberick GF
ALTEX; 2022; 39(4):636-646. PubMed ID: 35404469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (II): Hazard and potency by combining kinetic peptide reactivity and the "2 out of 3" Defined Approach.
Natsch A; Gerberick GF
ALTEX; 2022; 39(4):647-655. PubMed ID: 35404468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (III): Adding human data to the assessment.
Natsch A
ALTEX; 2023; 40(4):571-583. PubMed ID: 37074977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reconstructed human epidermis-based testing strategy of skin sensitization potential and potency classification using epidermal sensitization assay and in silico data.
Mizumachi H; Suzuki S; Sakuma M; Natsui M; Imai N; Miyazawa M
J Appl Toxicol; 2024 Mar; 44(3):415-427. PubMed ID: 37846211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Integrated decision strategies for skin sensitization hazard.
Strickland J; Zang Q; Kleinstreuer N; Paris M; Lehmann DM; Choksi N; Matheson J; Jacobs A; Lowit A; Allen D; Casey W
J Appl Toxicol; 2016 Sep; 36(9):1150-62. PubMed ID: 26851134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Non-animal assessment of skin sensitization hazard: Is an integrated testing strategy needed, and if so what should be integrated?
Roberts DW; Patlewicz G
J Appl Toxicol; 2018 Jan; 38(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 28543848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Replacing the refinement for skin sensitization testing: Considerations to the implementation of adverse outcome pathway (AOP)-based defined approaches (DA) in OECD guidelines.
Kolle SN; Landsiedel R; Natsch A
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2020 Aug; 115():104713. PubMed ID: 32562760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Deriving a point of departure for assessing the skin sensitization risk of wearable device constituents with in vitro methods.
Ruparel N; Islas-Robles A; Hilberer A; Cantrell K; Madrid M; Ryan C; Gerberick GF; Persaud R
Food Chem Toxicol; 2024 Jul; 189():114725. PubMed ID: 38744418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Can currently available non-animal methods detect pre and pro-haptens relevant for skin sensitization?
Patlewicz G; Casati S; Basketter DA; Asturiol D; Roberts DW; Lepoittevin JP; Worth AP; Aschberger K
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Dec; 82():147-155. PubMed ID: 27569201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A triangular approach for the validation of new approach methods for skin sensitization.
Natsch A; Landsiedel R; Kolle SN
ALTEX; 2021; 38(4):669-677. PubMed ID: 34247252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches.
Zang Q; Paris M; Lehmann DM; Bell S; Kleinstreuer N; Allen D; Matheson J; Jacobs A; Casey W; Strickland J
J Appl Toxicol; 2017 Jul; 37(7):792-805. PubMed ID: 28074598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of in vitro assays for the assessment of the skin sensitization hazard of functional polysiloxanes and silanes.
Petry T; Bosch A; Coste X; Eigler D; Germain P; Seidel S; Jean PA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Mar; 84():64-76. PubMed ID: 28017767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Development of an in silico evaluation system that quantitatively predicts skin sensitization using OECD Guideline No. 497 ITSv2 defined approach for skin sensitization classification.
Asai T; Umeshita K; Sakurai M; Sakane S
Food Chem Toxicol; 2024 Mar; 185():114444. PubMed ID: 38253282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of combinations of in vitro sensitization test descriptors for the artificial neural network-based risk assessment model of skin sensitization.
Hirota M; Fukui S; Okamoto K; Kurotani S; Imai N; Fujishiro M; Kyotani D; Kato Y; Kasahara T; Fujita M; Toyoda A; Sekiya D; Watanabe S; Seto H; Takenouchi O; Ashikaga T; Miyazawa M
J Appl Toxicol; 2015 Nov; 35(11):1333-47. PubMed ID: 25824844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Predicting skin sensitizer potency based on in vitro data from KeratinoSens and kinetic peptide binding: global versus domain-based assessment.
Natsch A; Emter R; Gfeller H; Haupt T; Ellis G
Toxicol Sci; 2015 Feb; 143(2):319-32. PubMed ID: 25338925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Binary test battery with KeratinoSens™ and h-CLAT as part of a bottom-up approach for skin sensitization hazard prediction.
Otsubo Y; Nishijo T; Miyazawa M; Saito K; Mizumachi H; Sakaguchi H
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Aug; 88():118-124. PubMed ID: 28602621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Deriving a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level for Fragrance Ingredients Without Animal Testing: An Integrated Approach Applied to Specific Case Studies.
Natsch A; Emter R; Haupt T; Ellis G
Toxicol Sci; 2018 Sep; 165(1):170-185. PubMed ID: 29860528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Bayesian integrated testing strategy (ITS) for skin sensitization potency assessment: a decision support system for quantitative weight of evidence and adaptive testing strategy.
Jaworska JS; Natsch A; Ryan C; Strickland J; Ashikaga T; Miyazawa M
Arch Toxicol; 2015 Dec; 89(12):2355-83. PubMed ID: 26612363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Is a combination of assays really needed for non-animal prediction of skin sensitization potential? Performance of the GARD™ (Genomic Allergen Rapid Detection) assay in comparison with OECD guideline assays alone and in combination.
Roberts DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Oct; 98():155-160. PubMed ID: 30048705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Applicability of amino acid derivative reactivity assay (4 mM) for the prediction of skin sensitization by combining multiple alternative methods to evaluate key events.
Imamura M; Yamamoto Y; Fujita M; Wanibuchi S; Nakashima N; Kojima H; Ono A; Kasahara T
J Appl Toxicol; 2022 Jul; 42(7):1159-1167. PubMed ID: 34993977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
