IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v8y1988i4p531-544.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce C. Allen
  • Kenny S. Crump
  • Annette M. Shipp

Abstract

Twenty‐three chemicals were selected for comparison of the carcinogenic potencies estimated from epidemiological data to those estimated from animal carcinogenesis bioassays. The chemicals were all those for which reasonably strong evidence of carcinogenicity could be found in humans or animals and for which suitable data could be obtained for quantifying carcinogenic potencies in both humans and animals. Many alternative methods of analyzing the bioassay data were investigated. Almost all of the methods yielded potency estimates that were highly correlated with potencies estimated from epidemiological data; correlations were highly statistically significant (p

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 531-544, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:8:y:1988:i:4:p:531-544
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01193.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01193.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01193.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. 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. Adam M. Finkel, 1994. "Risk Assessment Research: Only the Beginning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 907-911, December.
    3. Daniel Krewski, 1990. "Measuring Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 615-617, December.
    4. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Does EPA Underestimate Cancer Risks by Ignoring Susceptibility Differences?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1780-1784, October.
    5. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Curtis C. Travis & Sheri T. Hester, 1990. "Background Exposure to Chemicals: What Is the Risk?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 463-466, December.
    8. Adam M. Finkel, 2014. "EPA Underestimates, Oversimplifies, Miscommunicates, and Mismanages Cancer Risks by Ignoring Human Susceptibility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1785-1794, October.
    9. Christopher J. Portier, 1988. "Species Correlation of Chemical Carcinogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 551-553, December.
    10. Alison C. Taylor & John S. Evans & Thomas E. McKone, 1993. "The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 403-412, August.
    11. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.
    12. Karen Watanabe & Frédéric Y. Bois & Lauren Zeise, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation: A Reexamination of Acute Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 301-310, June.
    13. Robert J. Scheuplein & John C. Bowers, 1995. "Dioxin–An Analysis of the Major Human Studies: Comparison with Animal‐Based Cancer Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 319-333, June.
    14. Seymour J. Garte, 1990. "Communication of Relative Carcinogenic Risks: A Quantitative Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 467-468, December.
    15. Kenneth T. Bogen, 1995. "Methods to Approximate Joint Uncertainty and Variability in Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 411-419, June.

    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:8:y:1988:i:4:p:531-544. 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.