Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Statistical Evaluation Methods in Toxicology

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Regulatory Toxicology

  • 33 Accesses

Abstract

What is specific to the statistics in toxicology, and why not just use textbook statistics? The reason is the aim of regulatory toxicology: “be confident in negative results.” By toxicological studies, one would like to prove the harmlessness of new drugs. By means of the so-called proof of safety approach, the false-negative error rate (consumer’s risk) is directly controlled. Unfortunately, in most of the statistical textbooks and publications, the alternative proof of the efficacy of new drugs with the direct control of the false-positive error rate is used, denoted in toxicology as proof of hazard. Therefore, in this chapter, the basics of the falsification principle are presented simplistically. The commonly used proof of hazard approach is discussed hereinafter, focusing on testing a dose-related trend. Finally, the proof of safety methods for selected study types is explained by means of examples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altman DG, Bland JM (1995) Statistics notes: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 311:485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz F, Hothorn LA (2003) Statistical analysis of monotone or non-monotone dose-response data from in vitro toxicological assays. ATLA (Alternat Lab Anim) 31(1):81–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Denton DL, Diamond J, Zheng L (2011) Test of significant toxicity: a statistical application for assessing whether an effluent or site water is truly toxic. Environ Toxicol Chem 30(5):1117–1126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dunnett CW (1955) A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 50(272):1096–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasler M, Hothorn LA (2008) Multiple contrast tests in the presence of heteroscedasticity. Biom J 50:793–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasler M, Hothorn LA (2011) A Dunnett-type procedure for multiple endpoints. Int J Biostat 7:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschke D, Kieser M, Hothorn LA (1999) Proof of safety in toxicology based on the ratio of two means for normally distributed data. Biom J 41:295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herberich E, Hothorn LA (2012) Statistical evaluation of mortality in long-term carcinogenicity bioassays using a Williams-type procedure. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 64(1):26–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herberich E, Sikorski J, Hothorn T (2010) A robust procedure for comparing multiple means under heteroscedasticity in unbalanced designs. PLoS One 5(3):e9788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn LA (2003) Statistics of interlaboratory in vitro toxicological studies. ATLA-Alternat Lab Anim 31(Suppl 1):43–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn LA (2015) Statistics in toxicology using R. Chapman and Hall. CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn LA, Kluxen FM (2019) Robust multiple comparisons against a control group with application in toxicology. ArXiv:190501838

  • Hothorn LA, Pirow R (2020) Use compatibility intervals in regulatory toxicology. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol:104720

    Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn LA, Reisinger K, Wolf T, Poth A, Fieblinger D, Liebsch M, Pirow R (2013) Statistical analysis of the hens egg test for micronucleus induction (HET-MN assay). Mutat Res 757:68–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jaki T, Kitsche A, Hothorn LA (2014) Statistical evaluation of toxicological assay with zero or near-to-zero counts in the concurrent control. J Biostat 11(1):1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Konietschke F, Hothorn LA (2012) Evaluation of toxicological studies using a nonparametric Shirley-Type trend test for comparing several dose levels with a control group. Stat Biopharm Res 4:14–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallmann P, Hothorn LA (2015) Boxplots for grouped and clustered data in toxicology. Arch Toxicol 90:1631–1638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-015-1608-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schaarschmidt F, Sill M, Hothorn LA (2008) Approximate simultaneous confidence intervals for multiple contrasts of binomial proportions. Biom J 50:782–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaarschmidt F, Sill M, Hothorn LA (2008a) Poly-k-tend tests for survival adjusted analysis of tumor rates formulated as approximate multiple contrast test. J. Biopharm Stat 18:934–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szoecs E, Schaefer RB (2015) Ecotoxicology is not normal. Environ Sci Pollut 22:13990–13999

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams DA (1972) The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics 28(2):519–531

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz University Hannover (retired), Hannover, Germany

    Ludwig A. Hothorn

Authors
  1. Ludwig A. Hothorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ludwig A. Hothorn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität München Inst. Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, München, Germany

    Franz-Xaver Reichl

  2. Tübingen, Germany

    Michael Schwenk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Hothorn, L.A. (2021). Statistical Evaluation Methods in Toxicology. In: Reichl, FX., Schwenk, M. (eds) Regulatory Toxicology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36206-4_44-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36206-4_44-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36206-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36206-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation