Εμφανίζονται 1 - 20 Αποτελέσματα από 25 για την αναζήτηση '"РЕПРОДУКТИВНАЯ ТОКСИЧНОСТЬ"', χρόνος αναζήτησης: 0,64δλ Περιορισμός αποτελεσμάτων
  1. 1
  2. 2
    Academic Journal

    Συνεισφορές: This study was conducted by the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products as part of the applied research funded under State Assignment No. 056-00026-24-01 (R&D Registry No. 124022300127-0), Работа выполнена в рамках государственного задания ФГБУ «НЦЭСМП» Минздрава России № 056-00026-24-01 на проведение прикладных научных исследований (номер государственного учета НИР 124022300127-0)

    Πηγή: Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy; Том 12, № 4 (2024); 463-476 ; Безопасность и риск фармакотерапии; Том 12, № 4 (2024); 463-476 ; 2619-1164 ; 2312-7821 ; 10.30895/2312-7821-2024-12-4

    Περιγραφή αρχείου: application/pdf

    Relation: https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/view/463/1282; https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/463/583; https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/463/591; https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/463/603; https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/463/604; https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/463/605; https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/463/606; Meek ME, Boobis A, Cote I, Dellarco V, Fotakis G, Munn S, et al. New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. J Appl Toxicol. 2014;34(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00699.x; Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T. Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Total Environ. 2009;407(19):5199–205.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.004; Weed DL. Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Anal. 2005; 25(6):1545–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00699.x; Martin P, Bladier C, Meek B, Bruyere O, Feinblatt E, Touvier M, et al. Weight of evidence for hazard identification: a critical review of the literature. Environ Health Perspect. 2018;126(7):076001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067; Dekant W, Bridges J. A quantitative weight of evidence methodology for the assessment of reproductive and developmental toxicity and its application for classification and labeling of chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;82:173–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.09.009; Ågerstrand M, Beronius A. Weight of evidence evaluation and systematic review in EU chemical risk assessment: foundation is laid but guidance is needed. Environ Int. 2016;92–93:590–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.008; Dekant W, Bridges J. Assessment of reproductive and developmental effects of DINP, DnHP and DCHP using quantitative weight of evidence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;81:397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.09.032; Енгалычева ГН, Сюбаев РД. Разработка педиатрических препаратов: ключевые факторы риска и программа доклинических исследований. Ведомости Научного центра экспертизы средств медицинского применения. Регуляторные исследования и экспертиза лекарственных средств. 2023;13(1):14–26. https://doi.org/10.30895/1991-2919-2023-500; Hoberman AM, Maki K, Mikashima F, Naota M, Wange RL, Lansita JA, Weis SL. Alternatives to monkey reproductive toxicology testing for biotherapeutics. Int J Toxicol. 2023;42(6):467–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/10915818231200859; Bourcier T, McGovern T, Cavaliero T, Ebere G, Nishikawa A, Nishimura J, et al. ICH S1 prospective evaluation study: weight of evidence approach to predict outcome and value of 2-year rat carcinogenicity studies. A report from the Regulatory Authorities Subgroup. Front Toxicol. 2024;6:1353783. https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2024.1353783; Bassan A, Steigerwalt R, Keller D, Beilke L, Bradley PM, Bringezu F, et al. Developing a pragmatic consensus procedure supporting the ICH S1B(R1) weight of evidence carcinogenicity assessment. Front Toxicol. 2024;6:1370045. https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2024.1370045; Avila AM, Bebenek I, Bonzo JA, Bourcier T, Davis Bruno KL, Carlson DB, et al. An FDA/CDER perspective on nonclinical testing strategies: classical toxicology approaches and new approach methodologies (NAMs). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2020;114:104662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104662; Vahle JL, Dybowski J, Graziano M, Hisada S, Lebron J, Nolte T, et al. ICH S1 prospective evaluation study and weight of evidence assessments: commentary from industry representatives. Front Toxicol. 2024;6:1377990. https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2024.1377990; Rosen EM, Ritchey ME, Girman CJ. Can weight of evidence, quantitative bias, and bounding methods evaluate robustness of real-world evidence for regulator and health technology assessment decisions on medical interventions? Clin Ther. 2023;45(12):1266–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.09.010; https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/view/463

  3. 3
    Academic Journal
  4. 4
    Academic Journal

    Περιγραφή αρχείου: application/pdf

    Relation: Шeпельская Н. Р. Сравнительный анализ различных методологических подходов к идентификации репродуктивной токсичности пестицидов / Н. Р. Шeпельская, Я. В. Колянчук // Вісник проблем біології і медицини. – 2018. – Вип. 3 (145). – С. 238–246.; https://repository.pdmu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/16698

  5. 5
    Academic Journal

    Περιγραφή αρχείου: application/pdf

    Relation: Колянчук Я. В. Дослідження гонадотоксичної активності ципроконазолу на самцях і самицях щурів Wistar Han / Я. В.Колянчук // Вісник проблем біології і медицини. – 2018. – Вип. 2 (144). – С. 107–114.; https://repository.pdmu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/16118

  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20