Literature DB >> 6628896

A reexamination of false-positive rates for carcinogenesis studies.

J K Haseman.   

Abstract

False-positive rates in the National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program (NCI/NTP) two-year carcinogenesis bioassay are examined. Previous studies that have reported high (20-50%) false-positive rates for these bioassays are reviewed. The decision rules used in many of these earlier investigations are far different than the procedures actually employed by the NCI/NTP in the interpretation of bioassay data. Data from 25 recent NTP feeding studies are examined, and the statistical significance of observed tumor increases are compared with the final interpretations regarding the carcinogenic effects of the chemicals under study. Based on this examination, a more realistic decision procedure is formulated. It is shown that under the assumption of a statistical decision rule which appears to mimic more closely the scientific judgment process, the actual overall false-positive rate in NCI/NTP bioassays appears to be no greater than 7% to 8%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6628896     DOI: 10.1016/s0272-0590(83)80148-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol        ISSN: 0272-0590


  10 in total

1.  The interpretation of equivocal or marginal animal carcinogenicity tests.

Authors:  R A Squire
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 6.691

Review 2.  The legacy of the F344 rat as a cancer bioassay model (a retrospective summary of three common F344 rat neoplasms).

Authors:  Robert R Maronpot; Abraham Nyska; Jennifer E Foreman; Yuval Ramot
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 5.635

3.  Proper interpretation of chronic toxicity studies and their statistics: A critique of "Which level of evidence does the US National Toxicology Program provide? Statistical considerations using the Technical Report 578 on Ginkgo biloba as an example".

Authors:  Grace E Kissling; Joseph K Haseman; Errol Zeiger
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 4.271

Review 4.  In vivo transgenic bioassays and assessment of the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals.

Authors:  J F Contrera; J J DeGeorge
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  Alternative tests: carcinogenesis as an example.

Authors:  B Schwetz; D Gaylor
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  Dual controls, p-value plots, and the multiple testing issue in carcinogenicity studies.

Authors:  M R Selwyn
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 7.  Chemical carcinogens: a review of the science and its associated principles. U.S. Interagency Staff Group on Carcinogens.

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Long-term chemical carcinogenesis experiments for identifying potential human cancer hazards: collective database of the National Cancer Institute and National Toxicology Program (1976-1991).

Authors:  J Huff; J Haseman
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Statistical issues in the design, analysis and interpretation of animal carcinogenicity studies.

Authors:  J K Haseman
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Estimates of the proportion of chemicals that were carcinogenic or anticarcinogenic in bioassays conducted by the National Toxicology Program.

Authors:  K S Crump; D Krewski; C Van Landingham
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 9.031

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.