Showing results (141-150 of 352) with videos related to

Sort By:
Pageof 36
Systematic Reviews|March 24, 2022
Authors' rebuttal to Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to "Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools"Stephanie M Eick, Dana E Goin, Juleen Lam, et al.
BMC Public Health|October 5, 2018
Physical Literacy Knowledge Questionnaire: feasibility, validity, and reliability for Canadian children aged 8 to 12 yearsPatricia E Longmuir, Sarah J Woodruff, Charles Boyer, et al.
Life Sciences|March 14, 1983
Extracellular volume expansion and delayed resolution of hypertension after canine aortic coarctectomyC G Wickre, G M Baur, J Wong, et al.
Environmental Health Perspectives|April 3, 1998
Public health implications of 1990 air toxics concentrations across the United StatesT J Woodruff, D A Axelrad, J Caldwell, et al.
Annals of Surgical Oncology|April 3, 1998
Multifocal extremity sarcoma: an uncommon and controversial entityS L Blair, J J Lewis, D Leung, et al.
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling|May 8, 2020
Applications of Machine Learning to In Silico Quantification of Chemicals without Analytical StandardsDimitri Abrahamsson, June-Soo Park, Randolph R Singh, et al.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology|September 14, 2004
Comparing exposure metrics in the relationship between PM2.5 and birth weight in CaliforniaRupa Basu, Tracey J Woodruff, Jennifer D Parker, et al.
Occupational Medicine (Oxford, England)|June 28, 2019
A screening questionnaire for occupational and hobby exposures during pregnancyC M Zachek, J M Schwartz, M Glasser, et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology|May 1, 1996
Analysis of prognostic factors in 1,041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremitiesP W Pisters, D H Leung, J Woodruff, et al.
Systematic Reviews|October 30, 2020
Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different toolsStephanie M Eick, Dana E Goin, Nicholas Chartres, et al.
Pageof 36