Cited by 113Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Quantitative Risk Assessment for Developmental Toxicity

Ryan, Louise·1992·Biometrics

Abstract

Pharmaceutical companies and governmental regulatory agencies are becoming increasingly aware of the need for improved statistical methods for developmental toxicity experiments. Although a number of statisticians have become interested in this area, activity has centered mostly on the development of methods to analyze binary outcomes, such as malformations among live pups, while accounting appropriately for the correlation induced by the litter effect. In contrast, the topic of quantitative risk assessment has received relatively little attention. This paper addresses the specific question of how to assess risk appropriately when exposure causes a variety of adverse effects, including resorption and fetal death, in addition to malformations. It will be seen that risk assessments based on a single developmental outcome, such as malformation, may be conservative. A method is proposed for estimating an exposure level at which the overall risk of any adverse effect is acceptably low. The method is based on a continuation ratio formulation of a multinomial distribution, with an additional scale parameter to account for overdispersion. Comparisons are made with binary models on prenatal death and malformation, as well as a binary model that makes no distinction between death and malformation, but simply classifies each fetus as normal or abnormal. Data from several developmental toxicity studies illustrate the results and findings.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2532747

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ryan, L.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Ryan, Louise
Venue
Biometrics
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1992-03
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
163
ISSN
0006-341X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009170796
Cited by
113
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
11.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biometrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA48061)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
developmental toxicity, quantitative risk assessment, continuation ratio model, multinomial distribution, overdispersion, prenatal death, fetal malformations, resorption, litter effects, binary model
MeSH terms
Abnormalities, Drug-Induced, Animals, Biometry, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Embryonic and Fetal Development, Risk Factors, Toxicology, Models, Statistical, Mice

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