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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9193920)

  • 1. Implementation of EPA Revised Cancer Assessment Guidelines: Incorporation of Mechanistic and Pharmacokinetic Data.
    Page NP; Singh DV; Farland W; Goodman JI; Conolly RB; Andersen ME; Clewell HJ; Frederick CB; Yamasaki H; Lucier G
    Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1997 May; 37(1):16-36. PubMed ID: 9193920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Lessons learned in applying the U.S. EPA proposed cancer guidelines to specific compounds.
    Andersen ME; Meek ME; Boorman GA; Brusick DJ; Cohen SM; Dragan YP; Frederick CB; Goodman JI; Hard GC; O'Flaherty EJ; Robinson DE
    Toxicol Sci; 2000 Feb; 53(2):159-72. PubMed ID: 10696764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Approaches to cancer assessment in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System.
    Gehlhaus MW; Gift JS; Hogan KA; Kopylev L; Schlosser PM; Kadry AR
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2011 Jul; 254(2):170-80. PubMed ID: 21034767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. EPA's neurotoxicity risk assessment guidelines.
    Boyes WK; Dourson ML; Patterson J; Tilson HA; Sette WF; MacPhail RC; Li AA; O'Donoghue JL
    Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1997 Dec; 40(2):175-84. PubMed ID: 9441713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Improving cancer dose-response characterization by using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling: an analysis of pooled data for acrylonitrile-induced brain tumors to assess cancer potency in the rat.
    Kirman CR; Hays SM; Kedderis GL; Gargas ML; Strother DE
    Risk Anal; 2000 Feb; 20(1):135-51. PubMed ID: 10795346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. A cancer risk assessment of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: application of the new U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines.
    Doull J; Cattley R; Elcombe C; Lake BG; Swenberg J; Wilkinson C; Williams G; van Gemert M
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1999 Jun; 29(3):327-57. PubMed ID: 10388618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The evolution of EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook and its future as an exposure assessment resource.
    Phillips L; Moya J
    J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol; 2013; 23(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 22805985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's revised cancer guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment.
    Andersen M; Brusick D; Cohen S; Dragan Y; Frederick C; Goodman JI; Hard G; Meek B; O'Flaherty EJ
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 1998 Nov; 153(1):133-6. PubMed ID: 9875307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A discussion of the U.S. EPA methodology for determining Water Quality Standards (WQS).
    Burmaster DE; von Stackelberg KE
    Qual Assur; 1992 Jun; 1(3):192-206. PubMed ID: 1344674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Drawing the battle lines: tracing the "Science War" in the construction of the chloroform and human health risks debate.
    Driedger SM; Eyles J
    Environ Manage; 2003 Apr; 31(4):476-88. PubMed ID: 12677294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Developmental toxicity risk assessment: consensus building, hypothesis formulation, and focused research.
    Kimmel CA
    Drug Metab Rev; 1996; 28(1-2):85-103. PubMed ID: 8744591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Captan: transition from 'B2' to 'not likely'. How pesticide registrants affected the EPA Cancer Classification Update.
    Gordon E
    J Appl Toxicol; 2007; 27(5):519-26. PubMed ID: 17582583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. US EPA's IRIS pilot program: establishing IRIS as a centralized, peer-reviewed data base with agency consensus. Integrated Risk Information System.
    Mills A; Foureman GL
    Toxicology; 1998 May; 127(1-3):85-95. PubMed ID: 9699796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Calculating excess risk with age-dependent adjustment factors and cumulative doses: ethylene oxide case study.
    Sielken RL; Flores CV
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Oct; 55(1):76-81. PubMed ID: 19508881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Trichloroethylene health risk assessment: a new and improved process.
    Maull EA; Cogliano VJ; Scott CS; Barton HA; Fisher JW; Greenberg M; Rhomberg L; Sorgen SP
    Drug Chem Toxicol; 1997 Nov; 20(4):427-42. PubMed ID: 9433671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Framework for metals risk assessment.
    Fairbrother A; Wenstel R; Sappington K; Wood W
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2007 Oct; 68(2):145-227. PubMed ID: 17889701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.