Advertisement

Preliminary Analysis

  • Julia Pet-Edwards
  • Yacov Y. Haimes
  • Vira Chankong
  • Herbert S. Rosenkranz
  • Fanny K. Ennever

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.

Keywords

Data Base Sister Chromatid Exchange Positive Dependence Conditional Dependence Unknown Property 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Cramer, H., 1946, Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  4. Everitt, B. S., 1977, The Analysis of Contingency Tables, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  5. Fleiss, J. L., 1981, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Galen, R. S., and Gambino, S. R., 1975, Beyond Normality: The Predictive Value and Efficiency of Medical Diagnoses, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Palajda, M., and Rosenkranz, H. S., 1985, “Assembly and preliminary analysis of a genotoxicity data base for predicting carcinogens,” Mutation Res., 153:79–135.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tschuprow, A. A., 1919, “On mathematical expectation of the moments of frequency distributions,” Biometrika, 12:140–169.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Pet-Edwards
    • 1
  • Yacov Y. Haimes
    • 1
  • Vira Chankong
    • 2
  • Herbert S. Rosenkranz
    • 2
  • Fanny K. Ennever
    • 2
  1. 1.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations