IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v16y1996i1p107-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Correlation Coefficient Between the TD50 and the MTD

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi Razzaghi
  • David W. Gaylor

Abstract

The existence of correlation between the carcinogenic potency and the maximum tolerated dose has been the subject of many investigations in recent years. Several attempts have been made to quantify this correlation in different bioassay experiments. By using some distributional assumptions, Krewski et al.(1) derive an analytic expression for the coefficient of correlation between the carcinogenic potency TD50 and the maximum tolerated dose. Here, we discuss the deviation that may result in using their analytical expression. By taking a more general approach we derive an expression for the correlation coefficient which includes the result of Krewski et al.(1) as a special case, and show that their expression may overestimate the correlation in some instances and yet underestimate the correlation in other instances. The proposed method is illustrated by application to a real dataset.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi Razzaghi & David W. Gaylor, 1996. "On the Correlation Coefficient Between the TD50 and the MTD," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 107-113, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:1:p:107-113
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01440.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01440.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01440.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.
    2. Lauren Zeise & Richard Wilson & Edmund Crouch, 1984. "Use of Acute Toxicity to Estimate Carcinogenic Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 187-199, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pierre Crettaz & David Pennington & Lorenz Rhomberg & Kevin Brand & Olivier Jolliet, 2002. "Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1—Cancer Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 931-946, October.
    2. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.
    3. Fumie Yokota & George Gray & James K. Hammitt & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Tiered Chemical Testing: A Value of Information Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1625-1639, December.
    4. Wilson, James D., 1996. "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and Its Implications for Regulatory Policy," Discussion Papers 10470, Resources for the Future.
    5. Leslie Bernstein & Lois S. Gold & Bruce N. Ames & Malcolm C. Pike & David G. Hoel, 1985. "Toxicity and Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 263-264, December.
    6. Viay K. Gombar & Kurt Enslein & Jeffrey B. Hart & Benjamin W. Blake & Harold H. Borgstedt, 1991. "Estimation of Maximum Tolerated Dose for Long‐Term Bioassays from Acute Lethal Dose and Structure by QSAR," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 509-517, September.
    7. Wilson, James, 1996. "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and It's Implications for Regulatory Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-21, Resources for the Future.
    8. Gay Goodrnan & Richard Wilson, 1992. "Comparison of the Dependence of the TD50 on Maximum Tolerated Dose for Mutagens and Nonmutagens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 525-533, December.
    9. Walter W. Piegorsch & Gregory J. Carr & Christopher J. Portier & David G. Hoel, 1992. "Concordance of Carcinogenic Response between Rodent Species: Potency Dependence and Potential Underestimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-121, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:1:p:107-113. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.