The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Frequency of U-Shaped Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature
Abstract
Hormesis has been defined as a dose-response relationship in which there is a stimulatory response at low doses, but an inhibitory response at high doses, resulting in a U- or inverted U-shaped dose response. To assess the proportion of studies satisfying criteria for evidence of hormesis, a database was created from published toxicological literature using rigorous a priori entry and evaluative criteria. One percent (195 out of 20,285) of the published articles contained 668 dose-response relationships that met the entry criteria. Subsequent application of evaluative criteria revealed that 245 (37% of 668) dose-response relationships from 86 articles (0.4% of 20,285) satisfied requirements for evidence of hormesis. Quantitative evaluation of false-positive and false-negative responses indicated that the data were not very susceptible to such influences. A complementary analysis of all dose responses assessed by hypothesis testing or distributional analyses, where the units of comparison were treatment doses below the NOAEL, revealed that of 1089 doses below the NOAEL, 213 (19.5%) satisfied statistical significance or distributional data evaluative criteria for hormesis, 869 (80%) did not differ from the control, and 7 (0.6%) displayed evidence of false-positive values. The 32.5-fold (19.5% vs 0.6%) greater occurrence of hormetic responses than a response of similar magnitude in the opposite (negative) direction strongly supports the nonrandom nature of hormetic responses. This study, which provides the first documentation of a data-derived frequency of hormetic responses in the toxicologically oriented literature, indicates that when the study design satisfies a priori criteria (i.e., a well-defined NOAEL, > or = 2 doses below the NOAEL, and the end point measured has the capacity to display either stimulatory or inhibitory responses), hormesis is frequently encountered and is broadly represented according to agent, model, and end point. These findings have broad-based implications for study design, risk assessment methods, and the establishment of optimal drug doses and suggest important evolutionarily adaptive strategies for dose-response relationships.
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
Cited by
How does hormesis impact biology, toxicology, and medicine?
Calabrese, E. J., & Mattson, M. P. (2017) · npj Aging and Mechanisms of Disease · doi:10.1038/s41514-017-0013-z · Cited by 593
Self-citationCalabrese, E. J. (2013) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.808172 · Cited by 380
Self-citationEffects of perinatal exposure to PCBs and dioxins on play behavior in Dutch children at school age
Vreugdenhil, H. J. I., Slijper, F. M. E., Mulder, P. G. H., & Weisglas-Kuperus, N. (2002) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.021100593 · Cited by 188
Calabrese, E. J. (2008) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2007.07.001 · Cited by 180
Self-citationChemical mixtures: considering the evolution of toxicology and chemical assessment
Monosson, E. (2005) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.6987 · Cited by 171
Metadata
- Authors
- Calabrese, E. J.
- Venue
- Toxicological Sciences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-08-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 330-338
- ISSN
- 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140281720
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The Frequency of U-Shaped Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/toxsci/62.2.330
- The paper
- Calabrese, E. J. (2001). The Frequency of U-Shaped Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature. Toxicological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/62.2.330
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.