Statistical Interpretation of Toxicity Data

  • David W. Gaylor
Part of the Life Science Monographs book series (LSMO)


Many of the topics discussed in this chapter pertain to experimental data in general, but the context of their use and examples given are in the field of toxicology. The discussion focuses on the statistical interpretation of data rather than on the statistical procedures used in the data analysis. For an extensive discussion of the statistical analysis of biological data, the reader may refer to a multitude of books and articles.


Safety Factor Toxicity Data Linear Extrapolation Tumor Rate Statistical Interpretation 
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. Albert, R. E., and B. Altshuler. 1973. Considerations relating to the formulation of limits for unavoidable population exposures to environmental carcinogens. Pp. 233–253 in J. E. Ballou, R. H. Busch, D. D. Mahlum, and C. L. Sanders, eds.Radionuclide Carcinogenesis. AEC Symposium Series, CONF-72050. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.Google Scholar
  2. Cochran, W. G., and G. M. Cox. 1957.Experimental Designs,2nd ed. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Crump, K. S., D. G. Hoel, C. H. Langley, and R. Peto. 1976. Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment.Cancer Res. 36:2973–2979.Google Scholar
  4. Fears, T. R., R. E. Tarone, and K. C. Chu. 1977. False-positive and false-negative rates for carcinogenicity screens.Cancer Res. 37:1941–1945.Google Scholar
  5. Gaylor, D. W., and R. L. Kodell. 1980. Linear interpolation algorithm for low dose risk assessment of toxic substances. J.Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 4:305–312.Google Scholar
  6. Guess, H. A., K. S. Crump, and R. Peto. 1977. Uncertainty estimates for low-dose-rate extrapolations of animal carcinogenicity data.Cancer Res. 37:3475–3483.Google Scholar
  7. Hoel, D. G., and H. E. Walburg. 1972. Statistical analysis of survival experiments. J.Natl. Cancer Inst. 49:361–372.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, E. L., and P. Meier. 1958. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations.J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 53:457–481.Google Scholar
  9. Kodell, R. L., G. W. Shaw, and A. M. Johnson. 1982. Nonparametric joint estimators for disease resistance and survival functions in survival/sacrifice experiments.Biometrics38:43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miller, R. G., Jr. 1966.Simultaneous Statistical Inference. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Mitchell, T. J., and B. W. Turnbull. 1979. Log-linear models in the analysis of disease prevalence data from survival/sacrifice experiments.Biometrics35:221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Peto, R. 1978. Carcinogenic effects of chronic exposure to very low levels of toxic substances.Environ. Health Perspect. 22:155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peto, R., and P. N. Lee. 1973. Weibull distributions for continuous carcinogenesis experiments.Bio metrics29:457–470.Google Scholar
  14. Peto R., M. C. Pike, N. E. Day, R. G. Gray, P. N. Lee, S. Parish, J. Peto, S. Richards, and J. Wahren-dorf. 1980. Guidelines for simple, sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments. Pp. 311–425 inLong-Term and Short-Term Screening Assays for Carcino gens: A Critical Appraisal. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Annex to Supplement 2. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon.Google Scholar
  15. Turnbull, B. W., and T. J. Mitchell. 1978. Exploratory analysis of disease prevalence data from survival/sacrifice experiments.Biometrics34:555–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Williams, D. A. 1971. A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control.Biometrics27:103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williams, D. A. 1972. The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control.Biometrics28:519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. Gaylor
    • 1
  1. 1.BiometryNational Center for Toxicological ResearchJeffersonUSA

Personalised recommendations