241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8645508)
1. Quantitative risk assessment and the limitations of the linearized multistage model.
Lovell DP; Thomas G
Hum Exp Toxicol; 1996 Feb; 15(2):87-104. PubMed ID: 8645508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The linearized multistage model and the future of quantitative risk assessment.
Crump KS
Hum Exp Toxicol; 1996 Oct; 15(10):787-98. PubMed ID: 8906427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An evaluation of benchmark dose methodology for non-cancer continuous-data health effects in animals due to exposures to dioxin (TCDD).
Gaylor DW; Aylward LL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2004 Aug; 40(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 15265602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of cancer slope factors using different statistical approaches.
Subramaniam RP; White P; Cogliano VJ
Risk Anal; 2006 Jun; 26(3):825-30. PubMed ID: 16834636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reducing uncertainty in risk assessment by using specific knowledge to replace default options.
McClellan RO
Drug Metab Rev; 1996; 28(1-2):149-79. PubMed ID: 8744594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Chloroform mode of action: implications for cancer risk assessment.
Golden RJ; Holm SE; Robinson DE; Julkunen PH; Reese EA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1997 Oct; 26(2):142-55. PubMed ID: 9356278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Risk assessment of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using a biologically based cancer model: a reevaluation of the Kociba et al. bioassay using 1978 and 1990 histopathology criteria.
Paustenbach DJ; Layard MW; Wenning RJ; Keenan RE
J Toxicol Environ Health; 1991 Sep; 34(1):11-26. PubMed ID: 1653856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A trichloroethylene risk assessment using a Monte Carlo analysis of parameter uncertainty in conjunction with physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling.
Cronin WJ; Oswald EJ; Shelley ML; Fisher JW; Flemming CD
Risk Anal; 1995 Oct; 15(5):555-65. PubMed ID: 7501875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Scientific analysis of the proposed uses of the T25 dose descriptor in chemical carcinogen regulation.
Roberts RA; Crump KS; Lutz WK; Wiegand HJ; Williams GM; Harrison PT; Purchase IF
Arch Toxicol; 2001 Nov; 75(9):507-12. PubMed ID: 11760810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Significant shortcomings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's latest draft risk characterization for dioxin-like compounds.
Starr TB
Toxicol Sci; 2001 Nov; 64(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 11606796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Risk from low-dose exposures.
Portier CJ; Lucier GW; Edler L
Science; 1994 Nov; 266(5188):1141-2. PubMed ID: 7973685
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. A simple method for quantitative risk assessment of non-threshold carcinogens based on the dose descriptor T25.
Sanner T; Dybing E; Willems MI; Kroese ED
Pharmacol Toxicol; 2001 Jun; 88(6):331-41. PubMed ID: 11453374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Linear-No-Threshold Default Assumptions for Noncancer and Nongenotoxic Cancer Risks: A Mathematical and Biological Critique.
Bogen KT
Risk Anal; 2016 Mar; 36(3):589-604. PubMed ID: 26249816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Part 1. Statistical Learning Methods for the Effects of Multiple Air Pollution Constituents.
Coull BA; Bobb JF; Wellenius GA; Kioumourtzoglou MA; Mittleman MA; Koutrakis P; Godleski JJ
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2015 Jun; (183 Pt 1-2):5-50. PubMed ID: 26333238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reassessing benzene risks using internal doses and Monte-Carlo uncertainty analysis.
Cox LA
Environ Health Perspect; 1996 Dec; 104 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):1413-29. PubMed ID: 9118928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Human respiratory tract cancer risks of inhaled formaldehyde: dose-response predictions derived from biologically-motivated computational modeling of a combined rodent and human dataset.
Conolly RB; Kimbell JS; Janszen D; Schlosser PM; Kalisak D; Preston J; Miller FJ
Toxicol Sci; 2004 Nov; 82(1):279-96. PubMed ID: 15254341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Estimation of a benchmark dose in the presence or absence of hormesis using posterior averaging.
Kim SB; Bartell SM; Gillen DL
Risk Anal; 2015 Mar; 35(3):396-408. PubMed ID: 25384940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. On use of the multistage dose-response model for assessing laboratory animal carcinogenicity.
Nitcheva DK; Piegorsch WW; West RW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Jul; 48(2):135-47. PubMed ID: 17490794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Carcinogenic effects of benzene--a status update and research needs to improve risk assessments: US EPA perspective. Environmental Protection Agency.
Sonawane B; Bayliss D; Valcovic L; Chen C; Rodan B; Farland W
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2000 Nov; 61(5-6):471-2. PubMed ID: 11086954
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Mathematical models in quantitative assessment of carcinogenic risk.
Park CN
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1989 Jun; 9(3):236-43. PubMed ID: 2756171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
