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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6525993)

  • 1. Statistical issues in the design, analysis and interpretation of animal carcinogenicity studies.
    Haseman JK
    Environ Health Perspect; 1984 Dec; 58():385-92. PubMed ID: 6525993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Statistical support of the proposed National Toxicology Program protocol.
    Haseman JK
    Toxicol Pathol; 1983; 11(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 6681400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. A comparison of false positive rates of peto and poly-3 methods for long-term carcinogenicity data analysis using multiple comparison adjustment method suggested by Lin and Rahman.
    Rahman MA; Lin KK
    J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(5):949-58. PubMed ID: 18781527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. A review of mammalian carcinogenicity study design and potential effects of alternate test procedures on the safety evaluation of food ingredients.
    Hayes AW; Dayan AD; Hall WC; Kodell RL; Williams GM; Waddell WD; Slesinski RS; Kruger CL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Jun; 60(1 Suppl):S1-34. PubMed ID: 21094668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Biostatistical issues in the design and analysis of animal carcinogenicity experiments.
    Portier CJ
    Environ Health Perspect; 1994 Jan; 102 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):5-8. PubMed ID: 8187725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Overall false positive rates in tests for linear trend in tumor incidence in animal carcinogenicity studies of new drugs.
    Lin KK; Rahman MA
    J Biopharm Stat; 1998 Mar; 8(1):1-15; discussion 17-22. PubMed ID: 9547425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Use of statistical decision rules for evaluating laboratory animal carcinogenicity studies.
    Haseman JK
    Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1990 May; 14(4):637-48. PubMed ID: 2193843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Weighted p-value adjustments for animal carcinogenicity trend test.
    Chen JJ; Lin KK; Huque M; Arani RB
    Biometrics; 2000 Jun; 56(2):586-92. PubMed ID: 10877321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Excess mortality in two-year rodent carcinogenicity studies.
    Roth A; Kadyszewski E; Geffray B; Paulissen J; Weaver RJ
    Toxicol Pathol; 2007 Dec; 35(7):1040-3. PubMed ID: 18098048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Carcinogenic Potency Database: analyses of 4000 chronic animal cancer experiments published in the general literature and by the U.S. National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program.
    Gold LS; Slone TH; Manley NB; Garfinkel GB; Hudes ES; Rohrbach L; Ames BN
    Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Dec; 96():11-5. PubMed ID: 1820251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A survival-adjusted quantal-response test for analysis of tumor incidence rates in animal carcinogenicity studies.
    Peddada SD; Kissling GE
    Environ Health Perspect; 2006 Apr; 114(4):537-41. PubMed ID: 16581542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Body weight-tumor incidence correlations in long-term rodent carcinogenicity studies.
    Haseman JK; Young E; Eustis SL; Hailey JR
    Toxicol Pathol; 1997; 25(3):256-63. PubMed ID: 9210256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Use of historical controls for animal experiments.
    Yanagawa T; Hoel DG
    Environ Health Perspect; 1985 Nov; 63():217-24. PubMed ID: 4076086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing laboratory evidence for neoplastic activity.
    Mantel N
    Biometrics; 1980 Sep; 36(3):381-99. PubMed ID: 7213907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Data analysis: statistical analysis and use of historical control data.
    Haseman JK
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Feb; 21(1):52-9; discussion 81-6. PubMed ID: 7784636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.