Follow‐up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing
Kerry L. Dearfield(Food Safety and Inspection Service), Kristine L. Witt(National Institutes of Health), Laura Custer(Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States)), Dan D. Levy(United States Food and Drug Administration), Elisabeth Lorge(Servier (France)), James Harvey(GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom)), James H. Kim(University of Southern California), Andreas Czich(Sanofi (Germany)), Gladys Ouédraogo‐Arras(L'Oréal (France)), Jan van Benthem(National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Susan Hester(Environmental Protection Agency), David Kirkland(Covance (United Kingdom)), Kirk Tarlo(Amgen (United States)), Maik Schuler(Pfizer (United States)), Martha M. Moore(National Center for Toxicological Research), Véronique Thybaud(Sanofi (France)), Michael C. Cimino(Environmental Protection Agency), Kevin Sweder(Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States)), Willi Suter(Novartis (Switzerland)), Freddy Van Goethem
Cited by 60
Related Papers
How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop
|Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis|2007|437
The in vivo Pig-a assay: A report of the International Workshop On Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) Workgroup
|Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis|2014|156
Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment
|Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis|2014|147
Quantitative approaches for assessing dose–response relationships in genetic toxicology studies
|Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis|2012|147
Strategy for genotoxicity testing: Hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing
|Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis|2006|131