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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3575793)

  • 21. Current and emerging challenges in toxicopathology: carcinogenic threshold of phenobarbital and proof of arsenic carcinogenicity using rat medium-term bioassays for carcinogens.
    Fukushima S; Morimura K; Wanibuchi H; Kinoshita A; Salim EI
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2005 Sep; 207(2 Suppl):225-9. PubMed ID: 15993454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Application of the results of carcinogen bioassays to man.
    Shubik P; Clayson DB
    IARC Sci Publ (1971); 1976; (13):241-52. PubMed ID: 1002176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Sixth plot of the carcinogenic potency database: results of animal bioassays published in the General Literature 1989 to 1990 and by the National Toxicology Program 1990 to 1993.
    Gold LS; Manley NB; Slone TH; Garfinkel GB; Ames BN; Rohrbach L; Stern BR; Chow K
    Environ Health Perspect; 1995 Nov; 103 Suppl 8(Suppl 8):3-122. PubMed ID: 8741772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Some tautologous aspects of the comparison of carcinogenic potency in rats and mice.
    Bernstein L; Gold LS; Ames BN; Pike MC; Hoel DG
    Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 5(1):79-86. PubMed ID: 3987994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Medium-term liver and multi-organ carcinogenesis bioassays for carcinogens and chemopreventive agents.
    Ito N; Hasegawa R; Imaida K; Hirose M; Shirai T
    Exp Toxicol Pathol; 1996 Feb; 48(2-3):113-9. PubMed ID: 8672864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The search for relevant short term bioassays for chemical carcinogens: the tribulation of a modern Sisyphus.
    Stich HF; Lam P; Lo LW; Koropatnick DJ; San RH
    Can J Genet Cytol; 1975 Dec; 17(4):471-91. PubMed ID: 812599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. An Integrated Experimental Design for the Assessment of Multiple Toxicological End Points in Rat Bioassays.
    Manservisi F; Marquillas CB; Buscaroli A; Huff J; Lauriola M; Mandrioli D; Manservigi M; Panzacchi S; Silbergeld EK; Belpoggi F
    Environ Health Perspect; 2017 Mar; 125(3):289-295. PubMed ID: 27448388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Genetic toxicology: current status of methods of carcinogen identification.
    Tennant RW; Zeiger E
    Environ Health Perspect; 1993 Apr; 100():307-15. PubMed ID: 8354178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Historical perspective of the cancer bioassay.
    Pastoor T; Stevens J
    Scand J Work Environ Health; 2005; 31 Suppl 1():129-40; discussion 119-22. PubMed ID: 16190160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evolution of the uses of rats and mice for assessing carcinogenic risk from chemicals in humans.
    Ward JM
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2010; 11(1):18. PubMed ID: 20593921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals in humans from rodent bioassay data.
    Goodman G; Wilson R
    Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Aug; 94():195-218. PubMed ID: 1954931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. An integrative test strategy for cancer hazard identification.
    Luijten M; Olthof ED; Hakkert BC; Rorije E; van der Laan JW; Woutersen RA; van Benthem J
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2016 Aug; 46(7):615-39. PubMed ID: 27142259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Estimates of the proportions of carcinogens and anticarcinogens in bioassays conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Application of a new meta-analytic approach.
    Crump KS; Krewski D; Van Landingham C
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1999; 895():232-44. PubMed ID: 10676421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Principles underlying dose selection for, and extrapolation from, the carcinogen bioassay: dose influences mechanism.
    Counts JL; Goodman JI
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Jun; 21(3):418-21. PubMed ID: 7480895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Toxicological procedures for assessing the carcinogenic potential of agricultural chemicals.
    Krewski D; Clayson D; Collins B; Munro IC
    Basic Life Sci; 1982; 21():461-97. PubMed ID: 6756380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The influence of chemical structure on the extent and sites of carcinogenesis for 522 rodent carcinogens and 55 different human carcinogen exposures.
    Ashby J; Paton D
    Mutat Res; 1993 Mar; 286(1):3-74. PubMed ID: 7678908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A classification framework and practical guidance for establishing a mode of action for chemical carcinogens.
    Butterworth BE
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Jun; 45(1):9-23. PubMed ID: 16530901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Medium-term bioassays in rats for rapid detection of the carcinogenic potential of chemicals.
    Shirai T; Hirose M; Ito N
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):251-72. PubMed ID: 10353390
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Stratification of rodent carcinogenicity bioassay results to reflect relative human hazard.
    Tennant RW
    Mutat Res; 1993 Mar; 286(1):111-8. PubMed ID: 7678907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Carcinogenesis bioassays: study duration and biological relevance.
    Haseman J; Melnick R; Tomatis L; Huff J
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2001 Jul; 39(7):739-44. PubMed ID: 11397520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.