Advertisement

Statistical Evaluation Methods in Toxicology

  • Ludwig A. HothornEmail author
Reference work entry

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 simplistic. 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 are explained by means of examples.

Keywords

Equal Sample Size Williams Test Contrast Coefficient Regulatory Toxicology Observe Effect Level 
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.

References

  1. Bretz F, Hothorn LA (2003) Statistical analysis of monotone or non-monotone dose-response data from in vitro toxicological assays. ATLA (Alternat. Lab. Animals) 31(1):81–96Google Scholar
  2. Chow S-C, Liu J-P (eds) (1998) Design and analysis of animal studies in pharmaceutical development. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 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):1117–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunnett CW (1955) A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. Journal of the American Statistical Association 50(272):1096–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fairweather WR, Bhattacharya A et al (1998) Biostatistical methodology in carcinogenicity studies. Drug Inf J 32:401–421Google Scholar
  6. 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 41:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hothorn LA (2003) Statistics of interlaboratory in vitro toxicological studies. ATLA-Altern Lab Anim 31(Suppl 1):43–63Google Scholar
  8. Hothorn LA, Hauschke D (2000) Identifying the maximum safe dose: a multiple testing approach. J Biopharm Stat 10:15–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. US-EPA (2013) Section 13, Test Method, Daphnid, Ceriodaphnia Dubia, survival and reproduction test. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/wet/upload/2007_07_10_methods_wet_disk3_ctf13.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2013
  10. Williams DA (1972) The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics 28(2):519–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations