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 *

69 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8672870)

  • 1. Cost-effective methods for identifying carcinogens.
    Ashby J
    Exp Toxicol Pathol; 1996 Feb; 48(2-3):167. PubMed ID: 8672870
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Value-of-information analysis of testing strategies: estimating the effect of uncertainty about the proportion of chemicals that are true human carcinogens.
    Ennever FK; Rosenkranz HS; Lave LB; Omenn GS
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():295-304. PubMed ID: 2115175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Testing for carcinogens: shift from animals to automation gathers steam--slowly.
    Schmidt C
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jul; 101(13):910-2. PubMed ID: 19549960
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Toxicogenomics applied to in vitro carcinogenicity testing with Balb/c 3T3 cells revealed a gene signature predictive of chemical carcinogens.
    Rohrbeck A; Salinas G; Maaser K; Linge J; Salovaara S; Corvi R; Borlak J
    Toxicol Sci; 2010 Nov; 118(1):31-41. PubMed ID: 20713471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Genetically altered mouse models for identifying carcinogens.
    Tennant RW; Stasiewicz S; Mennear J; French JE; Spalding JW
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):123-50. PubMed ID: 10353386
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
    Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Dose selection for carcinogenicity studies of pharmaceuticals.
    Horii I
    J Toxicol Sci; 1995 Sep; 20(4):462-4. PubMed ID: 8531242
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Short-and medium-term carcinogenicity tests: simple initiation-promotion assay systems.
    Tsuda H; Park CB; Moore MA
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):203-49. PubMed ID: 10353389
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Highlights of International meeting on Alternative Methods of Carcinogenicity Testing, Leesburg, VA, November 1-3, 2000, Sponsored by the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute.
    Jollow DJ
    J Agromedicine; 2004; 9(2):427-9. PubMed ID: 19785235
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Strategies for the identification of rodent carcinogens by in vitro short-term tests.
    Zeiger E
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():261-71. PubMed ID: 2371299
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Animal studies in potency ranking of carcinogens in Norway.
    Sanner T; Dybing E; Hardeng S; Haug E; Ovrebø S
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1992; 374():399-414. PubMed ID: 1620715
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Electrophilicity of nongenotoxic carcinogens and genotoxic noncarcinogens as measured by the ke test.
    Bakale G; McCreary RD
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():355-65. PubMed ID: 2371305
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Value of rodent carcinogenesis bioassays.
    Ward JM
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2008 Jan; 226(2):212. PubMed ID: 18029286
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Carcinogenesis. Testing times for the tests.
    Hay A
    Nature; 1991 Apr; 350(6319):555-6. PubMed ID: 2017254
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Update of carcinogenicity studies in animals and humans of 535 marketed pharmaceuticals.
    Brambilla G; Mattioli F; Robbiano L; Martelli A
    Mutat Res; 2012; 750(1):1-51. PubMed ID: 21968027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. US panel disagrees on cancer testing method.
    Gershon D
    Nature; 1993 Feb; 361(6411):389. PubMed ID: 8429873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Use of tests in yeasts and fungi in the detection and evaluation of carcinogens.
    Parry JM
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):471-85. PubMed ID: 10353399
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Use of non-mammalian species in bioassays for carcinogenicity.
    Bunton TE
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):151-84. PubMed ID: 10353387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.