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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

351 related items for PubMed ID: 19247635

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose-response concept.
    Calabrese EJ.
    Arch Toxicol; 2013 Sep; 87(9):1621-33. PubMed ID: 23887208
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment.
    Calabrese EJ.
    Arch Toxicol; 2015 Apr; 89(4):647-8. PubMed ID: 25596944
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. The debate on the use of linear no threshold for assessing the effects of low doses.
    Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, Masse R.
    J Radiol Prot; 2006 Sep; 26(3):317-24. PubMed ID: 16926474
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Challenges to default assumptions stimulate comprehensive realism as a new tier in quantitative cancer risk assessment.
    Sielken RL, Bretzlaff RS, Stevenson DE.
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Apr; 21(2):270-80. PubMed ID: 7644717
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response.
    Calabrese EJ.
    Arch Toxicol; 2013 Dec; 87(12):2063-81. PubMed ID: 23912675
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Cancer risk assessment foundation unraveling: new historical evidence reveals that the US National Academy of Sciences (US NAS), Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Committee Genetics Panel falsified the research record to promote acceptance of the LNT.
    Calabrese EJ.
    Arch Toxicol; 2015 Apr; 89(4):649-50. PubMed ID: 25600588
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Risk assessment of chemical carcinogens and thresholds.
    Neumann HG.
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2009 Apr; 39(6):449-61. PubMed ID: 19545196
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Low doses and thresholds in genotoxicity: from theories to experiments.
    Zito R.
    J Exp Clin Cancer Res; 2001 Sep; 20(3):315-25. PubMed ID: 11718209
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Low-dose radiation risk extrapolation fallacy associated with the linear-no-threshold model.
    Scott BR.
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 2008 Feb; 27(2):163-8. PubMed ID: 18480143
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Risk assessment: the default conservatism controversy.
    Barnard RC.
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Jun; 21(3):431-8. PubMed ID: 7480897
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. LNT and cancer risk assessment: Its flawed foundations part 1: Radiation and leukemia: Where LNT began.
    Calabrese EJ.
    Environ Res; 2021 Jun; 197():111025. PubMed ID: 33744270
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Population variability in biological adaptive responses to DNA damage and the shapes of carcinogen dose-response curves.
    Conolly RB, Gaylor DW, Lutz WK.
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2005 Sep 01; 207(2 Suppl):570-5. PubMed ID: 15996697
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Comparison of cancer slope factors using different statistical approaches.
    Subramaniam RP, White P, Cogliano VJ.
    Risk Anal; 2006 Jun 01; 26(3):825-30. PubMed ID: 16834636
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. [Prevention of cancer and the dose-effect relationship: the carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiations].
    Tubiana M.
    Cancer Radiother; 2009 Jul 01; 13(4):238-58. PubMed ID: 19539515
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Muller's Nobel lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?
    Calabrese EJ.
    Arch Toxicol; 2011 Dec 01; 85(12):1495-8. PubMed ID: 21717110
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment.
    Calabrese EJ.
    Environ Pollut; 2018 Oct 01; 241():289-302. PubMed ID: 29843011
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 18.