143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8994301)
1. The contribution of the mouse in hazard identification studies.
Maronpot RR; Boorman GA
Toxicol Pathol; 1996; 24(6):726-31. PubMed ID: 8994301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. The mouse carcinogenicity study is no longer a scientifically justifiable core data requirement for the safety assessment of pesticides.
Billington R; Lewis RW; Mehta JM; Dewhurst I
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2010 Jan; 40(1):35-49. PubMed ID: 20144135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Evaluation of carcinogenicity studies of medicinal products for human use authorised via the European centralised procedure (1995-2009).
Friedrich A; Olejniczak K
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Jul; 60(2):225-48. PubMed ID: 21513764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. In vivo transgenic bioassays and assessment of the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals.
Contrera JF; DeGeorge JJ
Environ Health Perspect; 1998 Feb; 106 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):71-80. PubMed ID: 9539006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Carcinogenicity testing and the evaluation of regulatory requirements for pharmaceuticals.
Contrera JF; Jacobs AC; DeGeorge JJ
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1997 Apr; 25(2):130-45. PubMed ID: 9185889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A perspective on current and future uses of alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.
Goodman JI
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():173-6. PubMed ID: 11695554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Short- and intermediate-term carcinogenicity testing--a review. Part 1: the prototypes mouse skin tumour assay and rat liver focus assay.
Enzmann H; Bomhard E; Iatropoulos M; Ahr HJ; Schlueter G; Williams GM
Food Chem Toxicol; 1998 Nov; 36(11):979-95. PubMed ID: 9771562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Neonatal mouse assay for tumorigenicity: alternative to the chronic rodent bioassay.
Flammang TJ; Tungeln LS; Kadlubar FF; Fu PP
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1997 Oct; 26(2):230-40. PubMed ID: 9356286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. The 2-year rodent bioassay in drug and chemical carcinogenicity testing: Performance, utility, and configuration for cancer hazard identification.
Suarez-Torres JD; Orozco CA; Ciangherotti CE
J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods; 2021; 110():107070. PubMed ID: 33905862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A critical appraisal of the value of the mouse cancer bioassay in safety assessment.
Alden CL; Smith PF; Piper CE; Brej L
Toxicol Pathol; 1996; 24(6):722-5. PubMed ID: 8994300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The in vivo rodent test systems for assessment of carcinogenic potential.
van der Laan JW; Spindler P
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2002 Feb; 35(1):122-5. PubMed ID: 11846641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. International regulatory needs for development of an IATA for non-genotoxic carcinogenic chemical substances.
Jacobs MN; Colacci A; Louekari K; Luijten M; Hakkert BC; Paparella M; Vasseur P
ALTEX; 2016; 33(4):359-392. PubMed ID: 27120445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prediction of carcinogenicity from two versus four sex-species groups in the carcinogenic potency database.
Gold LS; Slone TH
J Toxicol Environ Health; 1993 May; 39(1):143-57. PubMed ID: 8492327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
