127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38910363)
1. In Silico Phototoxicity Prediction of Drugs and Chemicals by using Derek Nexus and QSAR Toolbox.
Ahuja V; Adiga Perdur G; Aj Z; Krishnappa M; Kandarova H
Altern Lab Anim; 2024 Jun; ():2611929241256040. PubMed ID: 38910363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Predicting skin sensitisation using a decision tree integrated testing strategy with an in silico model and in chemico/in vitro assays.
Macmillan DS; Canipa SJ; Chilton ML; Williams RV; Barber CG
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Apr; 76():30-8. PubMed ID: 26796566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of in silico tools to predict the skin sensitization potential of chemicals.
Verheyen GR; Braeken E; Van Deun K; Van Miert S
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2017 Jan; 28(1):59-73. PubMed ID: 28105856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the global performance of eight in silico skin sensitization models using human data.
Golden E; Macmillan DS; Dameron G; Kern P; Hartung T; Maertens A
ALTEX; 2021; 38(1):33-48. PubMed ID: 32388570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR toolbox automatic workflow for the prediction of the acute toxicity of organic chemicals to fathead minnow.
Mombelli E; Pandard P
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2021 Jun; 122():104893. PubMed ID: 33587933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. How to resolve inconclusive predictions from defined approaches for skin sensitisation in OECD Guideline No. 497.
Macmillan DS; Chilton ML; Gao Y; Kern PS; Schneider SN
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2022 Nov; 135():105248. PubMed ID: 36007801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. KoCVAM-led development of phototoxicity alternative test method using reconstructed human epidermis model (KeraSkin™).
Kang NH; Kim SH; Kim J
Food Chem Toxicol; 2024 Jun; 188():114698. PubMed ID: 38679282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Bacterial mutagenicity test data: collection by the task force of the Japan pharmaceutical manufacturers association.
Hakura A; Awogi T; Shiragiku T; Ohigashi A; Yamamoto M; Kanasaki K; Oka H; Dewa Y; Ozawa S; Sakamoto K; Kato T; Yamamura E
Genes Environ; 2021 Sep; 43(1):41. PubMed ID: 34593056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. In vitro alternatives and phototoxicity testing. I. Evaluation of in vitro phototoxicity assays.
Okamoto Y; Ryu A; Ohkoshi K
Altern Lab Anim; 1999; 27(4):639-64. PubMed ID: 25487860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prediction of genotoxic potential of cosmetic ingredients by an in silico battery system consisting of a combination of an expert rule-based system and a statistics-based system.
Aiba née Kaneko M; Hirota M; Kouzuki H; Mori M
J Toxicol Sci; 2015 Feb; 40(1):77-98. PubMed ID: 25743748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A review of substances found positive in 1 of 3 in vitro tests for skin sensitization.
Kolle SN; Natsch A; Gerberick GF; Landsiedel R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Aug; 106():352-368. PubMed ID: 31112722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. In Silico Study of In Vitro GPCR Assays by QSAR Modeling.
Mansouri K; Judson RS
Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():361-81. PubMed ID: 27311474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The predictivity of the -alert performance- functionality of the OECD QSAR-Toolbox (c/w further issues on the predictivity of nonclinical testing).
Suarez-Torres JD; Ciangherotti CE; Jimenez-Orozco FA
Toxicol In Vitro; 2020 Aug; 66():104858. PubMed ID: 32278032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computer models versus reality: how well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization potential of a substance.
Teubner W; Mehling A; Schuster PX; Guth K; Worth A; Burton J; van Ravenzwaay B; Landsiedel R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Dec; 67(3):468-85. PubMed ID: 24090701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data.
Golden E; Ukaegbu DC; Ranslow P; Brown RH; Hartung T; Maertens A
Chem Res Toxicol; 2023 May; 36(5):734-746. PubMed ID: 37126467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A quantitative in silico model for predicting skin sensitization using a nearest neighbours approach within expert-derived structure-activity alert spaces.
Canipa SJ; Chilton ML; Hemingway R; Macmillan DS; Myden A; Plante JP; Tennant RE; Vessey JD; Steger-Hartmann T; Gould J; Hillegass J; Etter S; Smith BPC; White A; Sterchele P; De Smedt A; O'Brien D; Parakhia R
J Appl Toxicol; 2017 Aug; 37(8):985-995. PubMed ID: 28244128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. SkinSensPred as a Promising in Silico Tool for Integrated Testing Strategy on Skin Sensitization.
Wang SS; Wang CC; Tung CW
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Oct; 19(19):. PubMed ID: 36232156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Non-animal photosafety assessment approaches for cosmetics based on the photochemical and photobiochemical properties.
Onoue S; Suzuki G; Kato M; Hirota M; Nishida H; Kitagaki M; Kouzuki H; Yamada S
Toxicol In Vitro; 2013 Dec; 27(8):2316-24. PubMed ID: 24134854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
