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 *

86 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 423310)

  • 41. Evaluations of organ system development in juvenile toxicology testing.
    Robinson K
    Reprod Toxicol; 2008 Sep; 26(1):51-3. PubMed ID: 18595655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Intercurrent disease and environmental variables in rodent toxicology studies.
    Fox JG
    Prog Exp Tumor Res; 1983; 26():208-40. PubMed ID: 6844642
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [Problems which are essential to resolve in order to obtain significant results in experimental studies on nutrition and toxicology in laboratory animals].
    Ferrando R; Truhaut R
    Bull Acad Natl Med; 1980 Feb; 164(2):183-8. PubMed ID: 7004589
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Best practices for use of historical control data of proliferative rodent lesions.
    Keenan C; Elmore S; Francke-Carroll S; Kemp R; Kerlin R; Peddada S; Pletcher J; Rinke M; Schmidt SP; Taylor I; Wolf DC
    Toxicol Pathol; 2009 Aug; 37(5):679-93. PubMed ID: 19454599
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Animal studies for prediction of chronic toxicity.
    Pigott GH
    Arch Toxicol Suppl; 1992; 15():103-12. PubMed ID: 1510574
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Variable group size can further reduce animal usage in acute toxicity tests.
    Sutton TJ; Reilly LM
    Arch Toxicol; 1991; 65(3):260-1. PubMed ID: 2053854
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Report on the ICCVAM workshop on in vitro methods for assessing acute systemic toxicity].
    Genschow E; Liebsch M; Halle W; Spielmann H
    ALTEX; 2001; 18(2):115-6. PubMed ID: 11378685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. On the choice of experimental populations for research in neurobehavioral toxicology.
    Young SS
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1983; 12(4-6):841-2. PubMed ID: 6668626
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. NCTR/NCI symposium on the use of inbred and outbred animals in toxicological testing, Little Rock, Arkansas, February 1978.
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1979 Jan; 5(1):1-168. PubMed ID: 34043
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Laboratory animal toxicity and carcinogenesis testing. Underlying concepts, advantages and constraints.
    Rall DP
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1988; 534():78-83. PubMed ID: 3291727
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. An IARC appraisal of carcinogenicity testing.
    Food Cosmet Toxicol; 1981 Dec; 19(6):783-5. PubMed ID: 7327483
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. In vitro methods of toxicity evaluation.
    Tardiff RG
    Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol; 1978; 18():357-69. PubMed ID: 348063
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Design and hardware selection of a microcomputer based system for the recording of animal observation data.
    Bertermann RE
    Drug Inf J; 1977; 11(2):93-6. PubMed ID: 10236323
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Current developments in nanosafety research.
    Hammad S; Bolt HM
    Arch Toxicol; 2014 Dec; 88(12):2089-91. PubMed ID: 25420465
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Farm or laboratory for male chicks?
    Cherkin A
    Nature; 1979 Oct; 281(5732):522. PubMed ID: 492313
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Should the microscopic evaluation of slides from toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in animals be conducted in a "blind" fashion.
    Prasse K; Hildebrandt P; Dodd D
    Vet Pathol; 1986 Jul; 23(4):540-1. PubMed ID: 3750749
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Common sense and environmental pathology.
    Wagner BM
    Hum Pathol; 1978 Nov; 9(6):733-4. PubMed ID: 569633
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Current guidelines for toxicity testing: their strengths and weaknesses.
    Kroes R
    Food Chem Toxicol; 1990 Nov; 28(11):789-90. PubMed ID: 2272555
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Current problems in the choice of animals for toxicity testing.
    Stevenson DE
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1979 Jan; 5(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 423310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection.
    Rhomberg LR; Baetcke K; Blancato J; Bus J; Cohen S; Conolly R; Dixit R; Doe J; Ekelman K; Fenner-Crisp P; Harvey P; Hattis D; Jacobs A; Jacobson-Kram D; Lewandowski T; Liteplo R; Pelkonen O; Rice J; Somers D; Turturro A; West W; Olin S
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007; 37(9):729-837. PubMed ID: 17957539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.