IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v7y1987i4p437-447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issues Concerning the Estimation of the TD50

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J. Portier
  • David G. Hoel

Abstract

The TD50 (or tumorigenic dose rate 50) is a generally accepted measure of the carcinogenic potency of a chemical in a particular strain of animal. This paper discusses error in the estimation of the TD50 caused by intercurrent mortality and error resulting from consideration of only significant TD50's. Using computer simulations, we found that treatment‐related toxicity had only a small effect on estimating the TD50, with errors seldom exceeding 5%. The TD50 is sensitive to changes in tumor lethality with errors ranging to as high as 50%. Many of these errors were significantly different from zero and the results suggest that potency estimation could be improved by basing the estimates upon the tumor incidence rate rather than upon the tumor death rate when an estimate of tumor lethality is obtainable.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J. Portier & David G. Hoel, 1987. "Issues Concerning the Estimation of the TD50," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 437-447, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:7:y:1987:i:4:p:437-447
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00481.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00481.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00481.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. S. W. Lagakos & Louise M. Ryan, 1985. "On the Representativeness Assumption in Prevalence Tests of Carcinogenicity," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 34(1), pages 54-62, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Peter M. VanDoren, 1996. "The Effects of Exposure to “Synthetic” Chemicals on Human Health: A Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 367-376, June.

    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. Ahn, Hongshik & Moon, Hojin & Kim, Sunyoung & Kodell, Ralph L., 2002. "A Newton-based approach for attributing tumor lethality in animal carcinogenicity studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 263-283, January.
    2. Chan, I. S. F. & Hillman, D. & Louis, T. A., 1998. "Treatment comparisons with screenable endpoints," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 401-419, June.
    3. Moon, Hojin & Ahn, Hongshik & Kodell, Ralph L. & Pearce, Bruce A., 1999. "A comparison of a mixture likelihood method and the EM algorithm for an estimation problem in animal carcinogenicity studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 227-238, August.

    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:7:y:1987:i:4:p:437-447. 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.