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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 592429)

  • 1. Use of statistics when examining lifetime studies in rodents to detect carcinogenicity.
    Salsburg DS
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1977 Nov; 3(4):611-28. PubMed ID: 592429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Response to "use of Statistics when Examining Lifetime Studies in Rodents to Detect Carcinogenicity".
    Fears TR; Tarone RE
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1977 Nov; 3(4):629-32. PubMed ID: 592430
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Response to "Use of Statistics when Examining Lifetime Studies in Rodents to Detect Carcinogenicity".
    Haseman JK
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1977 Nov; 3(4):633-6. PubMed ID: 592431
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
    Gaylor DW
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. False-positive and false-negative rates for carcinogenicity screens.
    Fears TR; Tarone RE; Chu KC
    Cancer Res; 1977 Jul; 37(7 Pt 1):1941-5. PubMed ID: 861930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Statistical issues in interpretation of chronic bioassay tests for carcinogenicity.
    Gart JJ; Chu KC; Tarone RE
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1979 Apr; 62(4):957-74. PubMed ID: 285297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Basic requirements for long-term assays for carcinogenicity.
    Feron VJ; Grice HC; Griesemer R; Peto R; Agthe C; Althoff J; Arnold DL; Blumenthal H; Cabral JR; Della Porta G; Ito N; Kimmerle G; Kroes R; Mohr U; Napalkov NP; Odashima S; Page NP; Schramm T; Steinhoff D; Sugar J; Tomatis L; Uehleke H; Vouk V
    IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum Suppl; 1980; (2 Suppl):21-83. PubMed ID: 6935180
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison and evaluation of some experimental designs for use in carcinogen screening.
    Elashoff RM; Preston DL; Fears TR
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1979 May; 62(5):1209-19. PubMed ID: 286098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
    Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
    Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Biopharmaceutical studies, a key to better toxicology.
    Zbinden G
    Xenobiotica; 1988 Jan; 18 Suppl 1():9-14. PubMed ID: 3344592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Further analysis of Ames-negative rodent carcinogens that are only genotoxic in mammalian cells in vitro at concentrations exceeding 1 mM, including retesting of compounds of concern.
    Kirkland D; Fowler P
    Mutagenesis; 2010 Nov; 25(6):539-53. PubMed ID: 20720197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.
    Kirkland D; Aardema M; Müller L; Makoto H
    Mutat Res; 2006 Sep; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Type II (beta) errors in the hand literature: the importance of power.
    Chung KC; Kalliainen LK; Hayward RA
    J Hand Surg Am; 1998 Jan; 23(1):20-5. PubMed ID: 9523949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An alternative approach to the analysis of animal carcinogenicity studies.
    Stallard N; Whitehead A
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1996 Jun; 23(3):244-8. PubMed ID: 8812967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of carcinogenicity studies with aldrin and dieldrin.
    Ritper DL
    J Assoc Off Anal Chem; 1979 Jul; 62(4):900-3. PubMed ID: 500539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Possible methods of carcinogenicity testing for substances used at the place of work.
    Steinhoff D
    Cancer Detect Prev; 1981; 4(1-4):41-6. PubMed ID: 7349803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens.
    Vogel EW; Graf U; Frei HJ; Nivard MM
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):427-70. PubMed ID: 10353398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Epidemiological and experimental applications to occupational cancer prevention.
    Vainio H; Hemminki K
    J UOEH; 1989 Mar; 11 Suppl():323-45. PubMed ID: 2664947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Uncertainty estimates for low-dose-rate extrapolations of animal carcinogenicity data.
    Guess H; Crump K; Peto R
    Cancer Res; 1977 Oct; 37(10):3475-83. PubMed ID: 908002
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.