IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i6p1601-1612.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing for Additivity at Select Mixture Groups of Interest Based on Statistical Equivalence Testing Methods

Author

Listed:
  • LeAnna G. Stork
  • Chris Gennings
  • Richard A. Carchman
  • Walter H. Carter
  • Joel Pounds
  • Moiz Mumtaz

Abstract

Several assumptions, defined and undefined, are used in the toxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. In scientific practice mixture components in the low‐dose region, particularly subthreshold doses, are often assumed to behave additively (i.e., zero interaction) based on heuristic arguments. This assumption has important implications in the practice of risk assessment, but has not been experimentally tested. We have developed methodology to test for additivity in the sense of Berenbaum (Advances in Cancer Research, 1981), based on the statistical equivalence testing literature where the null hypothesis of interaction is rejected for the alternative hypothesis of additivity when data support the claim. The implication of this approach is that conclusions of additivity are made with a false positive rate controlled by the experimenter. The claim of additivity is based on prespecified additivity margins, which are chosen using expert biological judgment such that small deviations from additivity, which are not considered to be biologically important, are not statistically significant. This approach is in contrast to the usual hypothesis‐testing framework that assumes additivity in the null hypothesis and rejects when there is significant evidence of interaction. In this scenario, failure to reject may be due to lack of statistical power making the claim of additivity problematic. The proposed method is illustrated in a mixture of five organophosphorus pesticides that were experimentally evaluated alone and at relevant mixing ratios. Motor activity was assessed in adult male rats following acute exposure. Four low‐dose mixture groups were evaluated. Evidence of additivity is found in three of the four low‐dose mixture groups. The proposed method tests for additivity of the whole mixture and does not take into account subset interactions (e.g., synergistic, antagonistic) that may have occurred and cancelled each other out.

Suggested Citation

  • LeAnna G. Stork & Chris Gennings & Richard A. Carchman & Walter H. Carter & Joel Pounds & Moiz Mumtaz, 2006. "Testing for Additivity at Select Mixture Groups of Interest Based on Statistical Equivalence Testing Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1601-1612, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:6:p:1601-1612
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00846.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00846.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00846.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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu-Mei Tan & Harvey Clewell & Jerry Campbell & Melvin Andersen, 2011. "Evaluating Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Interactions with Computational Models in Supporting Cumulative Risk Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.

    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:26:y:2006:i:6:p:1601-1612. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.