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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9671564)

  • 1. A new model function for continuous data sets in health risk assessment of chemicals using the benchmark dose concept.
    Kalliomaa K; Haag-Grönlund M; Victorin K
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Apr; 27(2):98-107. PubMed ID: 9671564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The benchmark dose method--review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment.
    Filipsson AF; Sand S; Nilsson J; Victorin K
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2003; 33(5):505-42. PubMed ID: 14594105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quantalization of continuous data for benchmark dose estimation.
    Gaylor DW
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1996 Dec; 24(3):246-50. PubMed ID: 8975754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment.
    Sand S; Victorin K; Filipsson AF
    J Appl Toxicol; 2008 May; 28(4):405-21. PubMed ID: 17879232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Bootstrap estimation of benchmark doses and confidence limits with clustered quantal data.
    Zhu Y; Wang T; Jelsovsky JZ
    Risk Anal; 2007 Apr; 27(2):447-65. PubMed ID: 17511711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Calculation of benchmark doses from teratology data.
    Auton TR
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Apr; 19(2):152-67. PubMed ID: 8041913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment.
    Gaylor D; Ryan L; Krewski D; Zhu Y
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Oct; 28(2):150-64. PubMed ID: 9927564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparing experimental designs for benchmark dose calculations for continuous endpoints.
    Kuljus K; von Rosen D; Sand S; Victorin K
    Risk Anal; 2006 Aug; 26(4):1031-43. PubMed ID: 16948695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
    EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints.
    Sand S; von Rosen D; Victorin K; Filipsson AF
    Toxicol Sci; 2006 Mar; 90(1):241-51. PubMed ID: 16322076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA's benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1.
    Davis JA; Gift JS; Zhao QJ
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2011 Jul; 254(2):181-91. PubMed ID: 21034758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Background to the ADI/TDI/PTWI.
    Herrman JL; Younes M
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1999 Oct; 30(2 Pt 2):S109-13. PubMed ID: 10597623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multiplicity-adjusted inferences in risk assessment: benchmark analysis with quantal response data.
    Nitcheva DK; Piegorsch WW; West RW; Kodell RL
    Biometrics; 2005 Mar; 61(1):277-86. PubMed ID: 15737104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A benchmark dose analysis for sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) using dichotomous toxicity data.
    Foronda NM; Fowles J; Smith N; Taylor M; Temple W
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Feb; 47(1):84-9. PubMed ID: 16965845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of microbial dose-response models fitted to human data.
    Moon H; Chen JJ; Gaylor DW; Kodell RL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2004 Oct; 40(2):177-84. PubMed ID: 15450720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Role of the standard deviation in the estimation of benchmark doses with continuous data.
    Gaylor DW; Slikker W
    Risk Anal; 2004 Dec; 24(6):1683-7. PubMed ID: 15660621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dose-response modeling of in vivo genotoxicity data for use in risk assessment: some approaches illustrated by an analysis of acrylamide.
    Allen B; Zeiger E; Lawrence G; Friedman M; Shipp A
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Feb; 41(1):6-27. PubMed ID: 15649824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A probabilistic framework for non-cancer risk assessment.
    Chen JJ; Moon H; Kodell RL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Jun; 48(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 17166641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Principles of risk assessment for determining the safety of chemicals: recent assessment of residual solvents in drugs and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
    Hasegawa R; Koizumi M; Hirose A
    Congenit Anom (Kyoto); 2004 Jun; 44(2):51-9. PubMed ID: 15198717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.