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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9784436)

  • 1. Is the use of linear low-dose extrapolation still justified for carcinogens?
    Clayson DB
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Aug; 28(1):69-70. PubMed ID: 9784436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Thresholds in chemical carcinogenesis.
    Purchase IF; Auton TR
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Dec; 22(3):199-205. PubMed ID: 8837843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Cancer risk assessment of direct acting carcinogens.
    Zito R
    J Exp Clin Cancer Res; 1999 Sep; 18(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 10606168
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Literature review on the genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity of ethyl methanesulfonate.
    Gocke E; Bürgin H; Müller L; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):254-65. PubMed ID: 19857796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Acrylamide: review of toxicity data and dose-response analyses for cancer and noncancer effects.
    Shipp A; Lawrence G; Gentry R; McDonald T; Bartow H; Bounds J; Macdonald N; Clewell H; Allen B; Van Landingham C
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2006; 36(6-7):481-608. PubMed ID: 16973444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Extrapolation to humans of the results of carcinogenicity tests].
    Turusov VS; Parfenov IuD
    Vopr Onkol; 1984; 30(6):3-16. PubMed ID: 6377689
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cancer dose--response assessment for acrylonitrile based upon rodent brain tumor incidence: use of epidemiologic, mechanistic, and pharmacokinetic support for nonlinearity.
    Kirman CR; Gargas ML; Marsh GM; Strother DE; Klaunig JE; Collins JJ; Deskin R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Oct; 43(1):85-103. PubMed ID: 16099568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Empirical approaches to risk estimation and prediction.
    Krewski D; Cardis E; Zeise L; Feron VJ
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (131):131-78. PubMed ID: 10505296
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Approaches to the risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in food: a critical appraisal.
    O'Brien J; Renwick AG; Constable A; Dybing E; Müller DJ; Schlatter J; Slob W; Tueting W; van Benthem J; Williams GM; Wolfreys A
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2006 Oct; 44(10):1613-35. PubMed ID: 16887251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment.
    Calabrese EJ
    Arch Toxicol; 2009 Mar; 83(3):203-25. PubMed ID: 19247635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Quantitative methods of cancer risk assessment in exposure to chemicals].
    Szymczak W
    Med Pr; 2009; 60(3):215-21. PubMed ID: 19746890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Statistics for risk assessment of chemical carcinogens.
    Chen JJ; Chen YJ; Cheng KF
    J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2007; 25(4):281-312. PubMed ID: 18000784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Ethyl methanesulfonate toxicity in Viracept--a comprehensive human risk assessment based on threshold data for genotoxicity.
    Müller L; Gocke E; Lavé T; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):317-29. PubMed ID: 19443141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.