A Simple Threshold Model for the Classical Bioassay Problem

  • W. A. ThompsonJr.
  • R. E. Funderlic
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 21)


A biologically motivated dose response model is proposed for rough work where it is too difficult to take account of other relevant factors such as timing of exposure and delay of response. This model leads in a logical way to a Weibull dose response curve with parameters which can be naturally interpreted in terms of threshold and order of contact (for example linearity) in the low dose range. The traditional logit and probit models do not allow explicit study of these important issues. The several simple alternative models are compared by fitting them to sets of data. The Weibull does as well as but no better than the probit and logit but these three are superior to the other alternatives considered.


Weibull Distribution Threshold Model Fission Reactor Explicit Study Large Human Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barlow, R. E., Bartholomew, D. J., Bremner, J. M., and Brunk, H. D., 1972, “Statistical Inference Under Order Restrictions,” Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, H. and Kaufmann, B. P., 1938, X-ray induced chromosomal alterations in drosophila melanogaster, Genetics, 23:610–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brent, R. P., 1973, “Algorithms for Minimization without Derivatives,” Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  4. Bryan, W. R. and Shimkin, M. B., 1943, Quantitative analysis of dose-response data obtained with three carcinogenic hydorcarbons in strain C3# male mice, J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst., 3:503–31.Google Scholar
  5. Chand, N. and Hoel, D. G., 1974, A comparison of models for determining safe levels of environmental agents, Reliability and Biometry, F. Proschan and R. J. Serfling, eds., 681-700. SIAM.Google Scholar
  6. Cox, D. R., 1970, “The Analysis of Binary Data,” Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  7. Finney, D. J., 1964, “Probit Analysis,” Cambridge, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Gass, G. H., Coats, D., and Graham, N., 1964, Carcinogenic dose-response curve to oral diethylstilbesterol, J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst., 33:971–77.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, H. S. and Brown, M. B., 1952, A quantitative dose-response study of lymphoid-tumor development in irradiated C57 black mice, J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst., 13:185–208.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, H. W., 1980, The safety of fission reactors, Sci. Amer., 242: 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mann, N. R., Schafer, R. E., and Singpurwall, N. D., 1974, “Methods for Statistical Reliability and Life Data,” Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Maugh, T. H., 1978, Chemical carcinogens: How dangerous are low doses?, Science, 202:37–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peto, R., Lee, P. N., and Paige, W. S., 1972, Statistical analysis of the bioassay of continuous carcinogens, Br. J. of Cancer, 26:258–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Poel, W. G., 1959, Effect of carcinogenic dosage and duration of exposure on skin-tumor induction in mice, J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst., 22:19–43.Google Scholar
  15. Rupert, C. S. and Harm, W., 1966, Reactivation after photobiological damage, Advances in Radiation Biology, 2:2–75.Google Scholar
  16. Thompson, W. A., Jr., 1969, “Applied Probability,” Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Totter, J. R. and Finamore, F. J., 1978, “Dose Responses to Cancerogenic and Mutagenic Treatments,” Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge.Google Scholar
  18. Turner, M. E., Jr., 1975, Some classes of hit-theory models, Math. Biosciences, 23, 219–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Whittemore, A. and Keller, J.B., 1978, Quantitative theories of carcinogenesis, SIAM Review, 20:1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. A. ThompsonJr.
    • 1
  • R. E. Funderlic
    • 2
  1. 1.Statistics DepartmentUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Nuclear Research DepartmentUnion Carbide CorporationOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations