440 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8906427)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. What to do at low doses: a bounding approach for economic analysis.
Griffiths CW; Dockins C; Owens N; Simon NB; Axelrad DA
Risk Anal; 2002 Aug; 22(4):679-88. PubMed ID: 12224742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Incorporating additional biological phenomena into two-stage cancer models.
Sielken RL; Bretzlaff RS; Stevenson DE
Prog Clin Biol Res; 1994; 387():237-60. PubMed ID: 7972250
[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. 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]
11. Regulatory cancer risk assessment based on a quick estimate of a benchmark dose derived from the maximum tolerated dose.
Gaylor DW; Swirsky Gold L
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Dec; 28(3):222-5. PubMed ID: 10049793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the carcinogenicity of 1,1-dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride).
Roberts SM; Jordan KE; Warren DA; Britt JK; James RC
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2002 Feb; 35(1):44-55. PubMed ID: 11846635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's revised guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment: evaluating a postulated mode of carcinogenic action in guiding dose-response extrapolation.
Wiltse JA; Dellarco VL
Mutat Res; 2000 Jan; 464(1):105-15. PubMed ID: 10633182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Addressing nonlinearity in the exposure-response relationship for a genotoxic carcinogen: cancer potency estimates for ethylene oxide.
Kirman CR; Sweeney LM; Teta MJ; Sielken RL; Valdez-Flores C; Albertini RJ; Gargas ML
Risk Anal; 2004 Oct; 24(5):1165-83. PubMed ID: 15563286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cancer risk assessment for 1,3-butadiene: data integration opportunities.
Preston RJ
Chem Biol Interact; 2007 Mar; 166(1-3):150-5. PubMed ID: 16647696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An improved procedure for low-dose carcinogenic risk assessment from animal data.
Crump KS
J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol; 1984 Jul; 5(4-5):339-48. PubMed ID: 6520736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of in vivo mutation data can inform cancer risk assessment.
Moore MM; Heflich RH; Haber LT; Allen BC; Shipp AM; Kodell RL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Jul; 51(2):151-61. PubMed ID: 18321622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Bayesian derivation of an oral cancer slope factor distribution for 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK).
Naufal Z; Kathman S; Wilson C
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Oct; 55(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 19505520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of cancer risk estimates based on a variety of risk assessment methodologies.
Gold LS; Gaylor DW; Slone TH
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2003 Feb; 37(1):45-53. PubMed ID: 12662908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Implications of dose-dependent target tissue absorption for linear and non-linear/threshold approaches in development of a cancer-based oral toxicity factor for hexavalent chromium.
Haney J
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Jul; 72(2):194-201. PubMed ID: 25910675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
