Literature DB >> 911968

Confidence intervals and test of hypotheses concerning dose response relations inferred from animal carcinogenicity data.

K S Crump, H A Guess, K L Deal.   

Abstract

Confidence intervals and hypothesis tests are developed for dose-response relations based on dichotomous data from animal carcinogenicity experiments. The functional form of the dose-response curve comes from the Armitage-Doll multistage carcinogenesis model and involves a polynomial in the dose-rate, with non-negative coefficients. Asymptotic distributions of the maximum likelihood estimators of these coefficients are used to construct confidence bounds on risk at a given dose and on the dose corresponding to a given risk. Likelihood ratio tests are developed for the presence of a positive dose-related effect and for the existence of a positive slope to the dose-response curve at zero dose. The latter test is of practical importance since a positive slope of the dose-response curve at zero dose rules out any "threshold-like" behavior and would often mean that any concentration low enough to insure a negligibly low cancer risk (e.g., 10(-6)) would be too low to be economically useful for applications such as food additives. Simulation experiments are performed to provide guidelines for applying the theory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1977        PMID: 911968

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  13 in total

1.  Maximum likelihood estimation with binary-data regression models: small-sample and large-sample features.

Authors:  Roland C Deutsch; John M Grego; Brian Habing; Walter W Piegorsch
Journal:  Adv Appl Stat       Date:  2010-02

2.  Pharmacology in cerebrovascular disease research: Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics to the rescue.

Authors:  Giora Z Feuerstein
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 6.200

3.  Carcinogenic risks of inorganic arsenic in perspective.

Authors:  D M Byrd; M L Roegner; J C Griffiths; S H Lamm; K S Grumski; R Wilson; S Lai
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  Confidence limits on one-stage model parameters in benchmark risk assessment.

Authors:  Brooke E Buckley; Walter W Piegorsch; R Webster West
Journal:  Environ Ecol Stat       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 1.119

5.  Bootstrap methods for simultaneous benchmark analysis with quantal response data.

Authors:  R Webster West; Daniela K Nitcheva; Walter W Piegorsch
Journal:  Environ Ecol Stat       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 1.119

6.  Carcinogenic risk assessment: comparison of estimated safe doses for rats and mice.

Authors:  J J Chen; D W Gaylor
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  A model-free approach to low-dose extrapolation.

Authors:  D Krewski; D Gaylor; M Szyszkowicz
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 8.  Pharmacokinetic factors influencing risk assessment: saturation of biochemical processes and cofactor depletion.

Authors:  D D Sumner; J T Stevens
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Risk assessment in a federal regulatory agency: an assessment of risk associated with the human consumption of some species of fish contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Authors:  F Cordle; R Locke; J Springer
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Report of the Federal Panel on Formaldehyde.

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.