Skip to main content

Abstract

Suppose we would like to utilize the results of multiple tests in making a decision. For example, we might want to use clinical test results in order to diagnose a patient’s disease, or we might want to use short-term in vitro tests to determine whether a particular chemical would present a cancer hazard. Before we can interpret the results of multiple tests and before we can determine which tests might be appropriate to use, we must have some past data on how well the tests performed in this function. We might already have specific knowledge about the reliability of the individual tests in predicting the property of interest, as well as the interrelationships among the tests. In this case, the analysis of data on the tests (i. e., the preliminary analysis step) may be omitted in its entirety or portions may be skipped.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ashby, J., and Tennant, R. W., 1988, “Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested in rodents by the U.S. NCI/NTP,” Mutation Res., 204:17–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chankong, V., Haimes, Y. Y., Rosenkranz, H. S., and Pet-Edwards, J., 1985, “The carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection (CPBS) method: A Bayesian approach,” Mutation Res., 153(3):135–166.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, H., 1946, Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, B. S., 1977, The Analysis of Contingency Tables, Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss, J. L., 1981, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galen, R. S., and Gambino, S. R., 1975, Beyond Normality: The Predictive Value and Efficiency of Medical Diagnoses, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenes, R. A., Begg, C. B., Cain, K. C., Swets, J. A., Feehrer, C. E., and McNeil, B. J., 1984, “Patient-oriented performance measures of diagnostic tests: 2. Assignment potential and assignment strength,” Med. Decision Making, 4(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, 1982, Suppl. 4, Chemicals, Industrial Processes and Industries Associated with Cancer in Humans, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palajda, M., and Rosenkranz, H. S., 1985, “Assembly and preliminary analysis of a genotoxicity data base for predicting carcinogens,” Mutation Res., 153:79–135.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, K., 1904, “Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution, XIII On the theory of contingency and its relation to association and normal correlation,” Draper’s C. Res. Mem. Biometric, Sec. 1, Reprinted in Karl Pearson’s Early Papers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pet-Edwards, J., 1986, “Selection and interpretation of conditionally dependent tests for binary predictions: A Bayesian approach,” Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pet-Edwards, J., Chankong, V., Rosenkranz, H. S., and Haimes, Y. Y., 1985a, “Application of the CPBS method to the Gene-Tox data base,” Mutation Res., 153:187–200.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pet-Edwards, J., Rosenkranz, H. S., Chankong, V., and Haimes, Y. Y., 1985b, “Cluster analysis in predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals using short-term assays,” Mutation Res., 153:173–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennant, R. W., Margolin, B. H., Shelby, M. D., Zeiger, E., Haseman, J. K., Spalding, J., Caspary, W., Resnick, M., Stasiewicz, S., Anderson, B., and Minor, R., 1987, “Prediction of chemical carcinogenicity in rodents from in vitro genotoxicity assays,” Science 236:933–941.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tschuprow, A. A., 1919, “On mathematical expectation of the moments of frequency distributions,” Biometrika, 12:140–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, M. D., Stack, H. F., and Brady, A. L., 1986, “Analysis of the spectra of genetic activity in short-term tests,” in Genetic Toxicology of Environmental Chemicals, Part B: Genetic Effects and Applied Mutagenesis, C. Ramel, B. Lambert, and J. Magnusson (eds.), Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeiger, E., 1982, “Knowledge gained from the testing of large numbers of chemicals,” in Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Environmental Mutagens, Tokyo, Mishima, and Kyoto, September 21–27, 1981, T. Sugimura, S. Kondo, and H. Takebe (eds.), Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 337–344.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pet-Edwards, J., Haimes, Y.Y., Chankong, V., Rosenkranz, H.S., Ennever, F.K. (1989). Preliminary Analysis. In: Risk Assessment and Decision Making Using Test Results. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5595-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5595-3_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-5597-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-5595-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics