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 *

283 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37402810)

  • 1. Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data.
    Menz J; Götz ME; Gündel U; Gürtler R; Herrmann K; Hessel-Pras S; Kneuer C; Kolrep F; Nitzsche D; Pabel U; Sachse B; Schmeisser S; Schumacher DM; Schwerdtle T; Tralau T; Zellmer S; Schäfer B
    Arch Toxicol; 2023 Sep; 97(9):2303-2328. PubMed ID: 37402810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment I. Methods and metrics for defining exposure-response relationships and points of departure (PoDs).
    MacGregor JT; Frötschl R; White PA; Crump KS; Eastmond DA; Fukushima S; Guérard M; Hayashi M; Soeteman-Hernández LG; Kasamatsu T; Levy DD; Morita T; Müller L; Schoeny R; Schuler MJ; Thybaud V; Johnson GE
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2015 May; 783():55-65. PubMed ID: 25953400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Establishing a quantitative framework for regulatory interpretation of genetic toxicity dose-response data: Margin of exposure case study of 48 compounds with both in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity dose-response data.
    Chepelev N; Long AS; Beal M; Barton-Maclaren T; Johnson G; Dearfield KL; Roberts DJ; van Benthem J; White P
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2023 Jan; 64(1):4-15. PubMed ID: 36345771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations.
    Dearfield KL; Gollapudi BB; Bemis JC; Benz RD; Douglas GR; Elespuru RK; Johnson GE; Kirkland DJ; LeBaron MJ; Li AP; Marchetti F; Pottenger LH; Rorije E; Tanir JY; Thybaud V; van Benthem J; Yauk CL; Zeiger E; Luijten M
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2017 Jun; 58(5):264-283. PubMed ID: 27650663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment II. Use of point-of-departure (PoD) metrics in defining acceptable exposure limits and assessing human risk.
    MacGregor JT; Frötschl R; White PA; Crump KS; Eastmond DA; Fukushima S; Guérard M; Hayashi M; Soeteman-Hernández LG; Johnson GE; Kasamatsu T; Levy DD; Morita T; Müller L; Schoeny R; Schuler MJ; Thybaud V
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2015 May; 783():66-78. PubMed ID: 25953401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improvement of in vivo genotoxicity assessment: combination of acute tests and integration into standard toxicity testing.
    Rothfuss A; Honma M; Czich A; Aardema MJ; Burlinson B; Galloway S; Hamada S; Kirkland D; Heflich RH; Howe J; Nakajima M; O'Donovan M; Plappert-Helbig U; Priestley C; Recio L; Schuler M; Uno Y; Martus HJ
    Mutat Res; 2011 Aug; 723(2):108-20. PubMed ID: 21182982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing.
    Thybaud V; Aardema M; Clements J; Dearfield K; Galloway S; Hayashi M; Jacobson-Kram D; Kirkland D; MacGregor JT; Marzin D; Ohyama W; Schuler M; Suzuki H; Zeiger E;
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):41-58. PubMed ID: 17126066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation of genotoxicity data provides protective estimates of in vivo dose.
    Beal MA; Audebert M; Barton-Maclaren T; Battaion H; Bemis JC; Cao X; Chen C; Dertinger SD; Froetschl R; Guo X; Johnson G; Hendriks G; Khoury L; Long AS; Pfuhler S; Settivari RS; Wickramasuriya S; White P
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2023 Feb; 64(2):105-122. PubMed ID: 36495195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantitative Interpretation of Genetic Toxicity Dose-Response Data for Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision-Making: Current Status and Emerging Priorities.
    White PA; Long AS; Johnson GE
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2020 Jan; 61(1):66-83. PubMed ID: 31794061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules.
    Snyder RD; Pearl GS; Mandakas G; Choy WN; Goodsaid F; Rosenblum IY
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2004; 43(3):143-58. PubMed ID: 15065202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The use of dose-response data in a margin of exposure approach to carcinogenic risk assessment for genotoxic chemicals in food.
    Benford DJ
    Mutagenesis; 2016 May; 31(3):329-31. PubMed ID: 26297741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A case for a new paradigm in genetic toxicology testing.
    Pottenger LH; Gollapudi BB
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):148-51. PubMed ID: 19616117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Genotoxicity testing: progress and prospects for the next decade.
    Turkez H; Arslan ME; Ozdemir O
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2017 Oct; 13(10):1089-1098. PubMed ID: 28889778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Current methods in risk assessment of genotoxic chemicals.
    Cartus A; Schrenk D
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Aug; 106(Pt B):574-582. PubMed ID: 27621049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Strategies in genotoxicology: Acceptance of innovative scientific methods in a regulatory context and from an industrial perspective.
    Steiblen G; Benthem JV; Johnson G
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2020 May; 853():503171. PubMed ID: 32522346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Empirical analysis of BMD metrics in genetic toxicology part II: in vivo potency comparisons to promote reductions in the use of experimental animals for genetic toxicity assessment.
    Wills JW; Long AS; Johnson GE; Bemis JC; Dertinger SD; Slob W; White PA
    Mutagenesis; 2016 May; 31(3):265-75. PubMed ID: 26984301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ethyl methanesulfonate toxicity in Viracept--a comprehensive human risk assessment based on threshold data for genotoxicity.
    Müller L; Gocke E; Lavé T; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):317-29. PubMed ID: 19443141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A Quantitative Toxicogenomics Assay for High-throughput and Mechanistic Genotoxicity Assessment and Screening of Environmental Pollutants.
    Lan J; Gou N; Rahman SM; Gao C; He M; Gu AZ
    Environ Sci Technol; 2016 Mar; 50(6):3202-14. PubMed ID: 26855253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop.
    Kirkland D; Pfuhler S; Tweats D; Aardema M; Corvi R; Darroudi F; Elhajouji A; Glatt H; Hastwell P; Hayashi M; Kasper P; Kirchner S; Lynch A; Marzin D; Maurici D; Meunier JR; Müller L; Nohynek G; Parry J; Parry E; Thybaud V; Tice R; van Benthem J; Vanparys P; White P
    Mutat Res; 2007 Mar; 628(1):31-55. PubMed ID: 17293159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.