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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9821022)

  • 1. A combined COMPACT and HazardExpert study of 40 chemicals for which information on mutagenicity and carcinogenicity is known, including the results of human epidemiological studies.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Oct; 17(10):577-86. PubMed ID: 9821022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Further evaluation of COMPACT, the molecular orbital approach for the prospective safety evaluation of chemicals.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Mutat Res; 1998 Jan; 412(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 9508363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison between rodent carcinogenicity test results of 44 chemicals and a number of predictive systems.
    Lewis DF
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Dec; 20(3 Pt 1):215-22. PubMed ID: 7724831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A retrospective evaluation of COMPACT predictions of the outcome of NTP rodent carcinogenicity testing.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Environ Health Perspect; 1995 Feb; 103(2):178-84. PubMed ID: 7737067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. COMPACT and molecular structure in toxicity assessment: a prospective evaluation of 30 chemicals currently being tested for rodent carcinogenicity by the NCI/NTP.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Environ Health Perspect; 1996 Oct; 104 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):1011-6. PubMed ID: 8933049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Human carcinogens: an evaluation study via the COMPACT and HazardExpert procedures.
    Lewi DF; Bird MG; Jacobs MN
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 2002 Mar; 21(3):115-22. PubMed ID: 12102536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
    Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Epidemiological and experimental applications to occupational cancer prevention.
    Vainio H; Hemminki K
    J UOEH; 1989 Mar; 11 Suppl():323-45. PubMed ID: 2664947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Validation of a novel molecular orbital approach (COMPACT) for the prospective safety evaluation of chemicals, by comparison with rodent carcinogenicity and Salmonella mutagenicity data evaluated by the U.S. NCI/NTP.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Mutat Res; 1993 Feb; 291(1):61-77. PubMed ID: 7678916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Comparison of criteria used to access carcinogenicity in CPANN QSAR models versus the knowledge-based expert system Toxtree.
    Fjodorova N; Novič M
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2014; 25(6):423-41. PubMed ID: 24716754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens.
    Vogel EW; Graf U; Frei HJ; Nivard MM
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):427-70. PubMed ID: 10353398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. A prospective toxicity evaluation (COMPACT) on 40 chemicals currently being tested by the National Toxicology Program.
    Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Parke DV
    Mutagenesis; 1990 Sep; 5(5):433-5. PubMed ID: 2263201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
    Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
    Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using cytochrome P-450 gene knock-out mice to study chemical metabolism, toxicity, and carcinogenicity.
    Ghanayem BI; Wang H; Sumner S
    Toxicol Pathol; 2000; 28(6):839-50. PubMed ID: 11127301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Activation of procarcinogens by human cytochrome P450 enzymes.
    Guengerich FP; Shimada T
    Mutat Res; 1998 May; 400(1-2):201-13. PubMed ID: 9685642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay for toxicity prediction: are we there yet?
    Benigni R
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2012 Apr; 8(4):407-17. PubMed ID: 22360376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.