Advanced Search
Display options
Filter resources
Text Availability
Article type
Publication date
Species
Language
Sex
Age
Showing 1 to 12 of 45 entries
Sorted by: Best Match Show Resources per page
Glyphosate rodent carcinogenicity bioassay expert panel review.

Critical reviews in toxicology

Williams GM, Berry C, Burns M, de Camargo JLV, Greim H.
PMID: 27677669
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2016 Sep;46:44-55. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2016.1214679.

Glyphosate has been rigorously and extensively tested for carcinogenicity by administration to mice (five studies) and to rats (nine studies). Most authorities have concluded that the evidence does not indicate a cancer risk to humans. The International Agency for...

Cite
Williams GM, Berry C, Burns M, et al. Glyphosate rodent carcinogenicity bioassay expert panel review. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2016;46:44-55doi: 10.1080/10408444.2016.1214679.
Williams, G. M., Berry, C., Burns, M., de Camargo, J. L. V., & Greim, H. (2016). Glyphosate rodent carcinogenicity bioassay expert panel review. Critical reviews in toxicology, 4644-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214679
Williams, Gary M, et al. "Glyphosate rodent carcinogenicity bioassay expert panel review." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 46 (2016): 44-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214679
Williams GM, Berry C, Burns M, de Camargo JLV, Greim H. Glyphosate rodent carcinogenicity bioassay expert panel review. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2016 Sep;46:44-55. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2016.1214679. PMID: 27677669.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Corrigendum.

Critical reviews in toxicology

[No authors listed]
PMID: 26340475
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2015;45(9):812. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2015.1073501. Epub 2015 Sep 04.

No abstract available.

Cite
Corrigendum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2015;45(9):812doi: 10.3109/10408444.2015.1073501.
(2015). Corrigendum. Critical reviews in toxicology, 45(9), 812. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2015.1073501
"Corrigendum." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 45,9 (2015): 812. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2015.1073501
Corrigendum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2015;45(9):812. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2015.1073501. Epub 2015 Sep 04. PMID: 26340475.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Correction to: Lippmann, Toxicological and epidemiological studies on effects of airborne fibers: Coherence and public health implications.

Critical reviews in toxicology

[No authors listed]
PMID: 25249334
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2015 Jan;45(1):92. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.964036. Epub 2014 Sep 24.

No abstract available.

Cite
Correction to: Lippmann, Toxicological and epidemiological studies on effects of airborne fibers: Coherence and public health implications. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2014;45(1):92doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.964036.
(2015). Correction to: Lippmann, Toxicological and epidemiological studies on effects of airborne fibers: Coherence and public health implications. Critical reviews in toxicology, 45(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2014.964036
"Correction to: Lippmann, Toxicological and epidemiological studies on effects of airborne fibers: Coherence and public health implications." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 45,1 (2015): 92. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2014.964036
Correction to: Lippmann, Toxicological and epidemiological studies on effects of airborne fibers: Coherence and public health implications. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2015 Jan;45(1):92. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.964036. Epub 2014 Sep 24. PMID: 25249334.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Corrigendum.

Critical reviews in toxicology

[No authors listed]
PMID: 30499361
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018 Nov;48(10):914. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2018.1522784. Epub 2018 Nov 30.

No abstract available.

Cite
Corrigendum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018;48(10):914doi: 10.1080/10408444.2018.1522784.
(2018). Corrigendum. Critical reviews in toxicology, 48(10), 914. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2018.1522784
"Corrigendum." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 48,10 (2018): 914. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2018.1522784
Corrigendum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018 Nov;48(10):914. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2018.1522784. Epub 2018 Nov 30. PMID: 30499361.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Erratum.

Critical reviews in toxicology

[No authors listed]
PMID: 29256698
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017 Oct;47(9):i. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419735.

No abstract available.

Cite
Erratum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017;47(9):idoi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419735.
(2017). Erratum. Critical reviews in toxicology, 47(9), i. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1419735
"Erratum." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 47,9 (2017): i. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1419735
Erratum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017 Oct;47(9):i. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419735. PMID: 29256698.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Erratum.

Critical reviews in toxicology

[No authors listed]
PMID: 29256797
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017 May;47(5):i. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419029.

No abstract available.

Cite
Erratum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017;47(5):idoi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419029.
(2017). Erratum. Critical reviews in toxicology, 47(5), i. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1419029
"Erratum." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 47,5 (2017): i. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1419029
Erratum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017 May;47(5):i. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419029. PMID: 29256797.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Erratum.

Critical reviews in toxicology

[No authors listed]
PMID: 29338571
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017 Aug;47(7):i. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419667.

No abstract available.

Cite
Erratum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017;47(7):idoi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419667.
(2017). Erratum. Critical reviews in toxicology, 47(7), i. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1419667
"Erratum." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 47,7 (2017): i. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1419667
Erratum. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2017 Aug;47(7):i. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1419667. PMID: 29338571.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Foreward.

Critical reviews in toxicology

[No authors listed]
PMID: 31318621
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018 Nov;48(10):904. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2019.1605112.

No abstract available.

Cite
Foreward. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018;48(10):904doi: 10.1080/10408444.2019.1605112.
(2018). Foreward. Critical reviews in toxicology, 48(10), 904. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2019.1605112
"Foreward." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 48,10 (2018): 904. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2019.1605112
Foreward. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018 Nov;48(10):904. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2019.1605112. PMID: 31318621.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing.

Critical reviews in toxicology

Parsons P, Freeman E, Weidling R, Williams GL, Gill P, Byron N.
PMID: 34756157
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Nov 10;1-22. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384. Epub 2021 Nov 10.

Traditionally, human health risk assessment focuses on defining the hazard through mammalian toxicity studies followed by exposure estimation. We have explored ways of predicting exposure based primarily on the use scenario and comparing the exposure to reference dose values...

Cite
Parsons P, Freeman E, Weidling R, et al. Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021;1-22doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384.
Parsons, P., Freeman, E., Weidling, R., Williams, G. L., Gill, P., & Byron, N. (2021). Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing. Critical reviews in toxicology, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384
Parsons, Paul, et al. "Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. (2021): 1-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384
Parsons P, Freeman E, Weidling R, Williams GL, Gill P, Byron N. Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Nov 10;1-22. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384. Epub 2021 Nov 10. PMID: 34756157.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Using the Matrix to bridge the epidemiology/risk assessment gap: a case study of 2,4-D.

Critical reviews in toxicology

Burns CJ, LaKind JS.
PMID: 34796780
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Nov 19;1-9. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1997911. Epub 2021 Nov 19.

BACKGROUND: The Matrix is designed to facilitate discussions between practitioners of risk assessment and epidemiology and, in so doing, to enhance the utility of epidemiology research for public health decision-making. The Matrix is comprised of nine fundamental "asks" of...

Cite
Burns CJ, LaKind JS. Using the Matrix to bridge the epidemiology/risk assessment gap: a case study of 2,4-D. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021;1-9doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1997911.
Burns, C. J., & LaKind, J. S. (2021). Using the Matrix to bridge the epidemiology/risk assessment gap: a case study of 2,4-D. Critical reviews in toxicology, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2021.1997911
Burns, Carol J, and LaKind, Judy S. "Using the Matrix to bridge the epidemiology/risk assessment gap: a case study of 2,4-D." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. (2021): 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2021.1997911
Burns CJ, LaKind JS. Using the Matrix to bridge the epidemiology/risk assessment gap: a case study of 2,4-D. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Nov 19;1-9. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1997911. Epub 2021 Nov 19. PMID: 34796780.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Does ozone inhalation cause adverse metabolic effects in humans? A systematic review.

Critical reviews in toxicology

LaKind JS, Burns CJ, Pottenger LH, Naiman DQ, Goodman JE, Marchitti SA.
PMID: 34569909
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Jul;51(6):467-508. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1965086. Epub 2021 Sep 27.

We utilized a practical, transparent approach for systematically reviewing a chemical-specific evidence base. This approach was used for a case study of ozone inhalation exposure and adverse metabolic effects (overweight/obesity, Type 1 diabetes [T1D], Type 2 diabetes [T2D], and...

Cite
LaKind JS, Burns CJ, Pottenger LH, et al. Does ozone inhalation cause adverse metabolic effects in humans? A systematic review. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021;51(6):467-508doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1965086.
LaKind, J. S., Burns, C. J., Pottenger, L. H., Naiman, D. Q., Goodman, J. E., & Marchitti, S. A. (2021). Does ozone inhalation cause adverse metabolic effects in humans? A systematic review. Critical reviews in toxicology, 51(6), 467-508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2021.1965086
LaKind, Judy S, et al. "Does ozone inhalation cause adverse metabolic effects in humans? A systematic review." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 51,6 (2021): 467-508. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2021.1965086
LaKind JS, Burns CJ, Pottenger LH, Naiman DQ, Goodman JE, Marchitti SA. Does ozone inhalation cause adverse metabolic effects in humans? A systematic review. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Jul;51(6):467-508. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1965086. Epub 2021 Sep 27. PMID: 34569909.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing.

Critical reviews in toxicology

Parsons P, Freeman E, Weidling R, Williams GL, Gill P, Byron N.
PMID: 34756157
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Aug;51(7):600-621. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384. Epub 2021 Nov 10.

Traditionally, human health risk assessment focuses on defining the hazard through mammalian toxicity studies followed by exposure estimation. We have explored ways of predicting exposure based primarily on the use scenario and comparing the exposure to reference dose values...

Cite
Parsons P, Freeman E, Weidling R, et al. Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021;51(7):600-621doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384.
Parsons, P., Freeman, E., Weidling, R., Williams, G. L., Gill, P., & Byron, N. (2021). Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing. Critical reviews in toxicology, 51(7), 600-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384
Parsons, Paul, et al. "Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing." Critical reviews in toxicology vol. 51,7 (2021): 600-621. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384
Parsons P, Freeman E, Weidling R, Williams GL, Gill P, Byron N. Using existing knowledge for the risk evaluation of crop protection products in order to guide exposure driven data generation strategies and minimise unnecessary animal testing. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Aug;51(7):600-621. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1987384. Epub 2021 Nov 10. PMID: 34756157.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Showing 1 to 12 of 45 entries