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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6686585)

  • 1. Comparative study of methods chosen by the Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) for evaluating sensitizing potential in the albino guinea-pig.
    Guillot JP; Gonnet JF; Clément C; Faccini JM
    Food Chem Toxicol; 1983 Dec; 21(6):795-805. PubMed ID: 6686585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The epicutaneous maximization test.
    Guillot JP; Gonnet JF
    Curr Probl Dermatol; 1985; 14():220-47. PubMed ID: 4064747
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The optimization test in the guinea-pig. A method for the predictive evaluation of the contact allergenicity of chemicals.
    Maurer T; Thomann P; Weirich EG; Hess R
    Agents Actions; 1975 May; 5(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 1155304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of guinea pig sensitization methods.
    Fahr H; Noster U; Schulz KH
    Contact Dermatitis; 1976 Dec; 2(6):335-9. PubMed ID: 1032127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The sensitizing capacity of coumarins (I).
    Hausen BM; Schmieder M
    Contact Dermatitis; 1986 Sep; 15(3):157-63. PubMed ID: 3780217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Draining lymph node cell activation in guinea pigs: comparisons with the murine local lymph node assay.
    Maurer T; Kimber I
    Toxicology; 1991; 69(2):209-18. PubMed ID: 1949049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Method for assessment of experimental allergy in guinea pigs adapted to cosmetic ingredients.
    Dossou KG; Sicard C; Kalopissis G; Reymond D; Schaefer H
    Contact Dermatitis; 1985 Oct; 13(4):226-34. PubMed ID: 4085222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Guinea pig maximization test, open epicutaneous test and chamber test in induction of delayed contact hypersensitivity.
    Kero M; Hannuksela M
    Contact Dermatitis; 1980 Aug; 6(5):341-4. PubMed ID: 7418390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The murine local lymph node assay: results of an inter-laboratory trial.
    Kimber I; Hilton J; Botham PA; Basketter DA; Scholes EW; Miller K; Robbins MC; Harrison PT; Gray TJ; Waite SJ
    Toxicol Lett; 1991 Feb; 55(2):203-13. PubMed ID: 1998208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Predictive evaluation in animals of the contact allergenic potential of medically important substances. II. Comparison of different methods of cutaneous sensitization with "weak" allergens.
    Maurer T; Thomann P; Weirich EG; Hess R
    Contact Dermatitis; 1979 Jan; 5(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 421455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test and its use in a risk assessment process for human skin sensitization.
    Robinson MK; Nusair TL; Fletcher ER; Ritz HL
    Toxicology; 1990 Apr; 61(2):91-107. PubMed ID: 2181736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment.
    Kimber I; Basketter DA; Berthold K; Butler M; Garrigue JL; Lea L; Newsome C; Roggeband R; Steiling W; Stropp G; Waterman S; Wiemann C
    Toxicol Sci; 2001 Feb; 59(2):198-208. PubMed ID: 11158712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparative study of the sensitivity of the 3-induction and 9-induction Buehler test procedures for assessing skin sensitisation potential.
    Botham P; Urtizberea M; Wiemann C; Manciaux X; Tilbury L; Vohr HW; Allen S; Carmichael NG; de Jouffrey S
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2005 Jan; 43(1):65-75. PubMed ID: 15582197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Identification of contact allergens in C.I. Solvent Red 23 (commercial Sudan III) by chemical analysis and animal testing.
    Okada J; Kanbe R; Kuzukawa M; Ikeda Y; Yoshimura K; Hayakawa R; Matsunaga K
    Contact Dermatitis; 1991 Nov; 25(5):313-8. PubMed ID: 1725669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Predictive contact allergenicity influence of the animal strain used.
    Maurer T; Weirich EG; Hess R
    Toxicology; 1984 Jun; 31(3-4):217-22. PubMed ID: 6740697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Contact sensitizers in resins based on phenol and formaldehyde.
    Bruze M
    Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh); 1985; 119():1-83. PubMed ID: 2934936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Contact allergy to colour developing agents in the guinea pig.
    Lidén C; Boman A
    Contact Dermatitis; 1988 Oct; 19(4):290-5. PubMed ID: 3219838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Skin sensitization potency and cross-reactivity of p-phenylenediamine and its derivatives evaluated by non-radioactive murine local lymph node assay and guinea-pig maximization test.
    Yamano T; Shimizu M
    Contact Dermatitis; 2009 Apr; 60(4):193-8. PubMed ID: 19338586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Predictive evaluation in animals of the contact allergenic potential of medically important substances. I. Comparison of different methods of inducing and measuring cutaneous sensitization.
    Maurer T; Thomann P; Weirich EG; Hess R
    Contact Dermatitis; 1978 Dec; 4(6):321-33. PubMed ID: 738037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Contact allergy to propylene glycol. Do we use the appropriate test concentration?
    Frosch PJ; Pekar U; Enzmann H
    Dermatol Clin; 1990 Jan; 8(1):111-3. PubMed ID: 2302849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.