128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38047445)
21. Predicting the mutagenic potential of chemicals in tobacco products using
Goel R; Valerio LG
Toxicol Mech Methods; 2020 Nov; 30(9):672-678. PubMed ID: 32752976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. DeepAmes: A deep learning-powered Ames test predictive model with potential for regulatory application.
Li T; Liu Z; Thakkar S; Roberts R; Tong W
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2023 Oct; 144():105486. PubMed ID: 37633327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. QSAR models to predict mutagenicity of acrylates, methacrylates and alpha,beta-unsaturated carbonyl compounds.
Pérez-Garrido A; Helguera AM; Rodríguez FG; Cordeiro MN
Dent Mater; 2010 May; 26(5):397-415. PubMed ID: 20122717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A knowledge-based expert rule system for predicting mutagenicity (Ames test) of aromatic amines and azo compounds.
Gadaleta D; Manganelli S; Manganaro A; Porta N; Benfenati E
Toxicology; 2016 Aug; 370():20-30. PubMed ID: 27644887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Multitask Deep Neural Networks for Ames Mutagenicity Prediction.
Martínez MJ; Sabando MV; Soto AJ; Roca C; Requena-Triguero C; Campillo NE; Páez JA; Ponzoni I
J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Dec; 62(24):6342-6351. PubMed ID: 36066065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Evaluation of QSAR models for the prediction of ames genotoxicity: a retrospective exercise on the chemical substances registered under the EU REACH regulation.
Cassano A; Raitano G; Mombelli E; Fernández A; Cester J; Roncaglioni A; Benfenati E
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2014; 32(3):273-98. PubMed ID: 25226221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparative evaluation of 11 in silico models for the prediction of small molecule mutagenicity: role of steric hindrance and electron-withdrawing groups.
Ford KA; Ryslik G; Chan BK; Lewin-Koh SC; Almeida D; Stokes M; Gomez SR
Toxicol Mech Methods; 2017 Jan; 27(1):24-35. PubMed ID: 27813437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Evaluation of a statistics-based Ames mutagenicity QSAR model and interpretation of the results obtained.
Barber C; Cayley A; Hanser T; Harding A; Heghes C; Vessey JD; Werner S; Weiner SK; Wichard J; Giddings A; Glowienke S; Parenty A; Brigo A; Spirkl HP; Amberg A; Kemper R; Greene N
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Apr; 76():7-20. PubMed ID: 26708083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Development of a read-across-derived classification model for the predictions of mutagenicity data and its comparison with traditional QSAR models and expert systems.
Pandey SK; Roy K
Toxicology; 2023 Dec; 500():153676. PubMed ID: 37993082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Mutagenicity assessment of two potential impurities in preparations of 5-amino-2,4,6 triiodoisophthalic acid, a key intermediate in the synthesis of the iodinated contrast agent iopamidol.
Rossi S; Bussi S; Bonafè R; Incardona C; Vurro E; Visigalli M; Buonsanti F; Fretta R
Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2024 Jan; 893():503720. PubMed ID: 38272634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Applicability domains for classification problems: Benchmarking of distance to models for Ames mutagenicity set.
Sushko I; Novotarskyi S; Körner R; Pandey AK; Cherkasov A; Li J; Gramatica P; Hansen K; Schroeter T; Müller KR; Xi L; Liu H; Yao X; Öberg T; Hormozdiari F; Dao P; Sahinalp C; Todeschini R; Polishchuk P; Artemenko A; Kuz'min V; Martin TM; Young DM; Fourches D; Muratov E; Tropsha A; Baskin I; Horvath D; Marcou G; Muller C; Varnek A; Prokopenko VV; Tetko IV
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Dec; 50(12):2094-111. PubMed ID: 21033656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 1. Aromatic amines.
Devillers J; Mombelli E
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Oct; 21(7-8):753-69. PubMed ID: 21120760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Mutagenic potential and structural alerts of phytotoxins.
Bassan A; Pavan M; Lo Piparo E
Food Chem Toxicol; 2023 Mar; 173():113562. PubMed ID: 36563927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Fragment Prioritization on a Large Mutagenicity Dataset.
Floris M; Raitano G; Medda R; Benfenati E
Mol Inform; 2017 Jul; 36(7):. PubMed ID: 28032691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Quantitative weight of evidence method for combining predictions of quantitative structure-activity relationship models.
Tintó-Moliner A; Martin M
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2020 Apr; 31(4):261-279. PubMed ID: 32065534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Hydromorphone impurity 2,2-bishydromorphone does not exert mutagenic and clastogenic properties via
Franckenstein D; Bothe MK; Hurtado SB; Westphal M
Drug Chem Toxicol; 2023 Nov; 46(4):634-639. PubMed ID: 35603474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. In silico prediction of chromosome damage: comparison of three (Q)SAR models.
Morita T; Shigeta Y; Kawamura T; Fujita Y; Honda H; Honma M
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 30085209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. New Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models Improve Predictability of Ames Mutagenicity for Aromatic Azo Compounds.
Manganelli S; Benfenati E; Manganaro A; Kulkarni S; Barton-Maclaren TS; Honma M
Toxicol Sci; 2016 Oct; 153(2):316-26. PubMed ID: 27413112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Prioritization of mycotoxins based on mutagenicity and carcinogenicity evaluation using combined in silico QSAR methods.
Lemée P; Fessard V; Habauzit D
Environ Pollut; 2023 Apr; 323():121284. PubMed ID: 36804886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A multiple in silico program approach for the prediction of mutagenicity from chemical structure.
White AC; Mueller RA; Gallavan RH; Aaron S; Wilson AG
Mutat Res; 2003 Aug; 539(1-2):77-89. PubMed ID: 12948816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
