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.
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]