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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3912853)

  • 1. The calculation and use of carcinogenic potency: a review.
    Barr JT
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1985 Dec; 5(4):432-59. PubMed ID: 3912853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Use of 'secondary mechanism' in the regulation of carcinogens; a chronology.
    Scheuplein RJ
    Cancer Lett; 1995 Jun; 93(1):103-12. PubMed ID: 7600537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Epidemiological studies for regulatory agencies.
    Hunt VR
    Environ Health Perspect; 1981 Dec; 42():61-5. PubMed ID: 7333261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The problem of extrapolating from observed carcinogenic effects to estimates of risk for exposed populations.
    Saffiotti U
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1980; 6(5-6):1309-26. PubMed ID: 7463522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Human risk assessment of carcinogens from an administrative perspective.
    Tesseraux I; Lommel A; Ollroge I; Kappos AD; Koss G
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1990 Feb; 11(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 2184466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals. II. Using oral slope factor as a measure of carcinogenic potency.
    Wang NC; Venkatapathy R; Bruce RM; Moudgal C
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Mar; 59(2):215-26. PubMed ID: 20951756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The perils of prudence: how conservative risk assessments distort regulation.
    Nichols AL; Zeckhauser RJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1988 Mar; 8(1):61-75. PubMed ID: 3368587
    [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. 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]  

  • 11. Declaring chemicals "not carcinogenic to humans" requires validation, not speculation.
    Melnick RL; Kamel F; Huff J
    Environ Health Perspect; 2003 Apr; 111(4):A203-4. PubMed ID: 12676636
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals.
    Woo YT; Lai DY; Argus MF; Arcos JC
    Toxicol Lett; 1995 Sep; 79(1-3):219-28. PubMed ID: 7570659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of the Gene-Tox and RTECS data bases as predictors of carcinogenic potency.
    Travis CC; Wang LA; Morris JM
    Mutat Res; 1992 Jun; 279(4):261-8. PubMed ID: 1377781
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Science policy choices and the estimation of cancer risk associated with exposure to TCDD.
    Gough M
    Risk Anal; 1988 Sep; 8(3):337-42. PubMed ID: 2849149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Default assumptions in carcinogen risk assessment used by regulatory agencies.
    Moolenaar RJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Dec; 20(3 Pt 2):S135-41. PubMed ID: 7724845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reducing uncertainty in risk assessment by using specific knowledge to replace default options.
    McClellan RO
    Drug Metab Rev; 1996; 28(1-2):149-79. PubMed ID: 8744594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. The classification of chemical carcinogens.
    Matula TI; Somers E
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1989 Oct; 10(2):174-82. PubMed ID: 2813870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Identification, characterization, and control of potential human carcinogens: a framework for Federal decision-making.
    Calkins DR; Dixon RL; Gerber CR; Zarin D; Omenn GS
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1980 Jan; 64(1):169-76. PubMed ID: 6928042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Federal regulatory assessment approach at the U.S. EPA.
    Fenner-Crisp P
    Sci Total Environ; 1990 Dec; 99(3):257-61; discussion 261-2. PubMed ID: 2077658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.