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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3775085)

  • 1. The use of decision-theoretic approach in regulating toxicity.
    Chen JJ; Gaylor DW
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1986 Sep; 6(3):274-83. PubMed ID: 3775085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. What to do at low doses: a bounding approach for economic analysis.
    Griffiths CW; Dockins C; Owens N; Simon NB; Axelrad DA
    Risk Anal; 2002 Aug; 22(4):679-88. PubMed ID: 12224742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
    Jardine C; Hrudey S; Shortreed J; Craig L; Krewski D; Furgal C; McColl S
    J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2003; 6(6):569-720. PubMed ID: 14698953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Hazard evaluation for complex mixtures: relative comparisons to improve regulatory consistency.
    Owen BA; Jones TD
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1990 Apr; 11(2):132-48. PubMed ID: 2185509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A distributional approach to characterizing low-dose cancer risk.
    Evans JS; Graham JD; Gray GM; Sielken RL
    Risk Anal; 1994 Feb; 14(1):25-34. PubMed ID: 8146399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improving the regulation of carcinogens by expediting cancer potency estimation.
    Hoover SM; Zeise L; Pease WS; Lee LE; Hennig MP; Weiss LB; Cranor C
    Risk Anal; 1995 Apr; 15(2):267-80. PubMed ID: 7597261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A proposed framework for assessing risk from less-than-lifetime exposures to carcinogens.
    Felter SP; Conolly RB; Bercu JP; Bolger PM; Boobis AR; Bos PM; Carthew P; Doerrer NG; Goodman JI; Harrouk WA; Kirkland DJ; Lau SS; Llewellyn GC; Preston RJ; Schoeny R; Schnatter AR; Tritscher A; van Velsen F; Williams GM
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2011 Jul; 41(6):507-44. PubMed ID: 21591905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Setting air quality standards for carcinogens: an alternative to mathematical quantitative risk assessment--discussion paper.
    Maynard RL; Cameron KM; Fielder R; McDonald A; Wadge A
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1995 Feb; 14(2):175-86. PubMed ID: 7779442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The linearized multistage model and the future of quantitative risk assessment.
    Crump KS
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1996 Oct; 15(10):787-98. PubMed ID: 8906427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Precautionary principles: a jurisdiction-free framework for decision-making under risk.
    Ricci PF; Cox LA; MacDonald TR
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 2004 Dec; 23(12):579-600. PubMed ID: 15688986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Carcinogen risk assessment in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Albert RE
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 1994; 24(1):75-85. PubMed ID: 8172652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Estimating risk for carcinogenic environmental contaminants and its impact on regulatory decision making.
    Cothern CR; Marcus WL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1984 Sep; 4(3):265-74. PubMed ID: 6494499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A general guideline for management of risk from carcinogens.
    Milvy P
    Risk Anal; 1986 Mar; 6(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 3602496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Environmental hazard and risk assessment under the United States Toxic Substances Control Act.
    Nabholz JV
    Sci Total Environ; 1991 Dec; 109-110():649-65. PubMed ID: 1815379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Risk assessment in the 21st century: roadmap and matrix.
    Embry MR; Bachman AN; Bell DR; Boobis AR; Cohen SM; Dellarco M; Dewhurst IC; Doerrer NG; Hines RN; Moretto A; Pastoor TP; Phillips RD; Rowlands JC; Tanir JY; Wolf DC; Doe JE
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2014 Aug; 44 Suppl 3():6-16. PubMed ID: 25070414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Science and politics: the possible regulation of cancer promoters.
    Williams JR; Clark WL
    Environ Health Perspect; 1983 Apr; 50():351-4. PubMed ID: 6873026
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Risk assessment policy in the United States.
    Flamm WG
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1986; 208():141-9. PubMed ID: 3960883
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A note on the role of background tumor incidence in risk assessment for carcinogens.
    Kodell RL; Chen JJ; Gaylor DW
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1989 Apr; 9(2):141-6. PubMed ID: 2717789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.