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 *

93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6681395)

  • 1. Advances in the design and reporting of conventional carcinogenicity tests.
    Hess R; Bretz R; Gfeller W
    Toxicol Pathol; 1983; 11(1):41-7. PubMed ID: 6681395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
    Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of the utility of the lifetime mouse bioassay in the identification of cancer hazards for humans.
    Osimitz TG; Droege W; Boobis AR; Lake BG
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2013 Oct; 60():550-62. PubMed ID: 23954551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
    Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Design of carcinogenicity studies: a backward glance.
    Diener R
    Toxicol Pathol; 1983; 11(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 6681394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Incorporation of transplacental exposure into routine carcinogenicity bioassays.
    Swenberg JA
    Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1979 May; (51):265-8. PubMed ID: 481580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity guidelines.
    Page NP
    J Environ Pathol Toxicol; 1977; 1(2):161-82. PubMed ID: 553129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Perinatal carcinogenesis: biologic curiosity or practical necessity?
    Clayson DB
    Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1979 May; (51):235-8. PubMed ID: 481576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Alternatives to the 2-species bioassay for the identification of potential human carcinogens.
    Ashby J
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1996 Mar; 15(3):183-202. PubMed ID: 8839204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Inter-species comparisons of carcinogenicity.
    Purchase IF
    Br J Cancer; 1980 Mar; 41(3):454-68. PubMed ID: 7387835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Animal carcinogenicity studies: implications for the REACH system.
    Knight A; Bailey J; Balcombe J
    Altern Lab Anim; 2006 Mar; 34 Suppl 1():139-47. PubMed ID: 16555967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Experimental design constraints on carcinogenic potency estimates.
    Rieth JP; Starr TB
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1989; 27(3):287-96. PubMed ID: 2754755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling.
    Valerio LG; Arvidson KB; Chanderbhan RF; Contrera JF
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2007 Jul; 222(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 17482223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Tg rasH2 mouse in cancer hazard identification.
    Morton D; Alden CL; Roth AJ; Usui T
    Toxicol Pathol; 2002; 30(1):139-46. PubMed ID: 11890467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Design of carcinogenicity studies, dose selection, route, blood levels, transformation.
    Neal RA
    Toxicol Pathol; 1983; 11(1):48-54. PubMed ID: 6681396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.