The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests
Open accessAbstract
SEVERAL issues pertinent to the validation of screening tests and to the evaluation of screening programmes have evolved, largely in the epidemiological and general medical literature (Vecchio, 1966; Holland, 1974; Henderson, 1976). For this reason, laboratory scientists interested in the development and validation of carcinogen screening tests may not be fully aware of some useful concepts. The paper reviews several such concepts and their relationships. These relationships explain, for example, why the "predictive value", although frequently used as an index of the utility of a screening test, is not well suited for that purpose. A carcinogen screening test is usually evaluated by applying it to a group of substances, each of which is considered to be, or not to be, a carcinogen according to some selected criteria (i.e. animal or human carcinogenesis). The specific criteria chosen are beyond the scope of this discussion; however, the validity measures of a screening test are meaningful only in the context of these criteria. After some number, N, of substances has been tested, the results may be described using the format of the Table. (Terms used to describe screening tests and screening programmes are defined below the Table.) A screening test is expected to designate carcinogens as "positive" and to designate non-carcinogens as "negative". Each of these 2 distinct functions has its own measure of validity. The proportion of carcinogens which give a positive result in Accepted 16 October 1978
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Epidemiology: Principles and Methods
MacMahon, B., & Pugh, T. F. (1970) · Cited by 1,472
McCann, J., & Ames, B. N. (1976) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.73.3.950 · Cited by 846
An evaluation of 6 short-term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens
Purchase, I. F., Longstaff, E., Ashby, J., Styles, J. A., Anderson, D., Lefevre, P. A., & Westwood, F. R. (1978) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1978.132 · Cited by 424
Holland, W. W. (1974) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)90230-x · Cited by 54
(1950) · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::aid-cncr2820030106>3.0.co;2-3
Cited by
Eriksson, L., Jaworska, J., Worth, A. P., Cronin, M. T. D., McDowell, R. M., & Gramatica, P. (2003) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.5758 · Cited by 1,325
Cottrez, F., Boitel, E., Ourlin, J.-C., Peiffer, J.-L., Fabre, I., Henaoui, I.-S., Mari, B., Vallauri, A., Paquet, A., Barbry, P., et al. (2016) · Toxicology in Vitro · doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2016.01.007 · Cited by 499
Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods
Urbisch, D., Mehling, A., Guth, K., Ramirez, T., Honarvar, N., Kolle, S., Landsiedel, R., Jaworska, J., Kern, P. S., Gerberick, F., et al. (2015) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.008 · Cited by 398
Wiemann, M., Vennemann, A., Sauer, U. G., Wiench, K., Ma-Hock, L., & Landsiedel, R. (2016) · Journal of Nanobiotechnology · doi:10.1186/s12951-016-0164-2 · Cited by 152
Leontaridou, M. (2017) · ALTEX · doi:10.14573/altex.1606271 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, J. A., Saracci, R., & Cole, P.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 1979-01
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-89
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2046596584
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 2.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1979.10
- The paper
- Cooper, J. A., Saracci, R., & Cole, P. (1979). Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1979.10
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
