| scholarly article | Q13442814 |
| P2093 | author name string | Edward J Calabrese | |
| P2860 | cites work | Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis | Q33879968 |
| Radiation hormesis: the demise of a legitimate hypothesis | Q33879973 | ||
| Tales of two similar hypotheses: the rise and fall of chemical and radiation hormesis | Q33879979 | ||
| The frequency of U-shaped dose responses in the toxicological literature | Q34083885 | ||
| The occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: an overview | Q36018746 | ||
| Hormetic mechanisms | Q38123216 | ||
| Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose-response concept | Q38124218 | ||
| 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 | Q38126376 | ||
| Biphasic dose responses in biology, toxicology and medicine: accounting for their generalizability and quantitative features | Q38132944 | ||
| The Genetics Panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self-interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model | Q38226176 | ||
| Cancer risk assessment: Optimizing human health through linear dose-response models | Q38444743 | ||
| On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith | Q38561784 | ||
| The Integration of LNT and Hormesis for Cancer Risk Assessment Optimizes Public Health Protection | Q40063654 | ||
| Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned | Q46508420 | ||
| 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 acceptan | Q48052759 | ||
| An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment | Q48052904 | ||
| Hormesis and plant biology. | Q51949318 | ||
| Hormesis in high-throughput screening of antibacterial compounds in E coli. | Q54392158 | ||
| Chemical hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis | Q73616997 | ||
| The marginalization of hormesis | Q73617000 | ||
| GENETIC effects of atomic radiation | Q74117564 | ||
| The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology | Q78873155 | ||
| Hormesis outperforms threshold model in National Cancer Institute antitumor drug screening database | Q80208299 | ||
| Hormesis predicts low-dose responses better than threshold models | Q82746430 | ||
| The hormesis database: the occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature | Q84432510 | ||
| P433 | issue | 4 | |
| P304 | page(s) | 1559325815621764 | |
| P577 | publication date | 2015-10-01 | |
| P1433 | published in | Dose-Response | Q20181483 |
| P1476 | title | Model Uncertainty via the Integration of Hormesis and LNT as the Default in Cancer Risk Assessment | |
| P478 | volume | 13 |
| Q37403662 | A Certified Health Physicist's Reflections on a 40-Year Career in Radiation Protection |
| Q38911791 | Biological basis of radiation protection needs rejuvenation |
| Q41937769 | Debate on the Chernobyl Disaster: Response to Alison Rosamund Katz. |
| Q58799336 | Influence of Individual Radiosensitivity on the Adaptive Response Phenomenon: Toward a Mechanistic Explanation Based on the Nucleo-Shuttling of ATM Protein |
| Q38864825 | Low-dose radiation may be a novel approach to enhance the effectiveness of cancer therapeutics |
| Q36283697 | Mechanisms and Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation |
| Q92098878 | Replacing LNT: The Integrated LNT-Hormesis Model |
| Q58793247 | The EPA Cancer Risk Assessment Default Model Proposal: Moving Away From the LNT |
| Q28068905 | The Emergence of the Dose-Response Concept in Biology and Medicine |
Search more.