Statistical power considerations show the endocrine disruptor low-dose issue in a new light

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 115, Issue SUPPL1, 2007, Pages 84-90

  Scholze, Maqrtin ^a   Kortenkamp, Andreas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Enchmark; Endocrine disruptors; LOEL; Low dose; NOEL; Threshold

Indexed keywords

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; HUMAN; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS; HUMANS; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 40949144159     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9364     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Almstrup K, Fernandez MF, Petersen J, Olea N, Skakkebaek NE, Leffers H. 2002. Dual effects of phytoestrogens result in U-shaped dose-response curves. Environ Health Perspect 110:743-748.
2. Ashby J, Tinwell H, Lefevre PA, Odum J, Paton D, Millward SW, et al. 1997. Normal sexual development of rats exposed to butyl benzyl phthalate from conception to weaning. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 26:102-118.
3. Ashby J, Tinwell H, Odum J, Lefevre P. 2004. Natural variability and the influence of concurrent control values on the detection and interpretation of low-dose or weak endocrine toxicities. Environ Health Perspect 112:847-853.
4. Bailer AJ, Noble RB, Wheeler MW. 2005. Model uncertainty and risk estimation for experimental studies of quantal responses. Risk Anal 25:291-299.
5. Branson M, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. 2003. Searching for an Adequate Dose: Combining Multiple Comparisons and Modeling Techniques in Dose-Response Studies. Technical Report 2003-08-20. Basel, Switzerland:Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Available: http://www.bioinf.uni-hannover.de/~bretz/paper/TR_MCPMod.pdf [accessed 5 September 2006].
6. Bretz F, Hothorn LA. 2001. Testing dose-response relationships with a priori unknown, possibly nonmonotone shapes. J Biopharm Stat 11:193-207.
7. Bretz F, Hothorn LA. 2003. Statistical analysis of monotone or non-monotone dose-response data from in vitro toxicologi-cal assays. Altern Lab Anim 31(suppl 1):81-96.
8. Bretz F, Pinheiro JC, Branson M. 2005. Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Biometrics 61:738-748.
9. Cox C. 1987. Threshold dose-response models in toxicology. Biometrics 43:511-523.
10. Crump KS. 1995. Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Analysis 15:79-89.
11. Dunnett CW. 1955. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 50:1096-1121.
12. Gaylor D, Ryan L, Krewski D, Zhu Y. 1998. Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 28:150-164.
13. Hothorn L, Bretz F. 2000. Evaluation of animal carcinogenicity studies: Cochran-Armitage trend test vs. multiple contrast tests. Biom J 42:553-567.
14. Hunt D, Bowman D. 2006. Modeling developmental data using U-shaped threshold dose-response curves. J Appl Stat 33:35-47.
15. Joergensen N, Asklund C, Carlsen E, Skakkebek NE. 2006. Coordinated European investigations of semen quality: results from studies of Scandinavian young men is a matter of concern. Int J Androl 29:54-61.
16. Moore DRJ, Caux P-Y. 1997. Estimating low toxic effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:794-801.
17. Muller KE, Barton CN, Benignus VA. 1984. Recommendations for appropriate statistical practice in toxicological experiments. Neurotoxicology 5:113-125.
18. Muller KE, Benignus VA. 1992. Increasing scientific power with statistical power. Neurotoxicol Teratol 14:211-219.
19. Neuhaeuser M, Seidel D, Hothorn L, Urfer W. 2000. Robust trend test with application to toxicology. Environ Ecol Stat 7:43-56.
20. NTP. 2001. National Toxicology Program's Report of the Endocrine Disruptors Low-Dose Peer Review. Research Triangle Park, NC:National Toxicology Program. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/liason/LowDosePeerFinalRpt.pdf [accessed 5 September 2006].
21. O'Brien R, Muller K. 1993. Unified power analysis for t-tests through multivariate hypotheses. In: Applied Analysis of Variance in Behavioural Science (Edwards LD, ed). New York:Marcel Dekker, 297-344.
22. OECD. 2001. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals. Proposal for Updating Guideline 416 (Two-Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/13/1948466.pdf [accessed 7 November 2006].
23. Oehlmann J, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Bachmann J, Oetken M, Lutz I, Kloas W, et al. 2006. Bisphenol A induces superfeminization in the ramshorn snail Marisa cornuarietis (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia) at environmentally relevant concentrations. Environ Health Perspect 114(suppl 1):127-133.
24. Ohsako S, Tohyama C. 2005. Comparison of study controls [Letter]. Environ Health Perspect 113:A582-A583.
25. Sand S, Filipsson AF, Victorin K. 2002. Evaluation of the benchmark dose method for dichotomous data: model dependence and model selection. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 36:184-197.
26. Scholze M, Bodeker W, Faust M, Backhaus T, Altenburger R, Grimme LH. 2001. A general best-fit method for concentra-tion-response curves and the estimation of low-effect concentrations. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:448-457.
27. Schwartz PF, Gennings C, Chinchilli VM. 1995. Threshold models for combination data from reproductive and developmental experiments. J Am Stat Assoc 90:862-870.
28. Sharpe RM, Fisher JS, Millar MM, Jobling S, Sumpter JP. 1995. Gestational and lactational exposure of rats to xeno-estrogens results in reduced testicular size and sperm production. Environ Health Perspect 103:1136-1143.
29. Sharpe RM, Turner KJ, Sumpter JP. 1998. Endocrine disruptors and testis development [Letter]. Environ Health Perspect 106:A220-A221.
30. Slob W. 1999. Thresholds in toxicology and risk assessment. Int J Toxicol 18:259-268.
31. Slob W. 2001. Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol Sci 66:298-312.
32. Thorpe KL, Hutchinson TH, Hetheridge MJ, Scholze M, Sumpter JP, Tyler CR. 2001. Assessing the biological potency of binary mixtures of environmental estrogens using vitellogenin induction in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ Sci Technol 35:2476-2481.
33. U.S. EPA. 1995. The Use of the Benchmark Dose (BMD) Approach in Health Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-94/007. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
34. van Ewijk PH, Hoekstra JA. 1993. Calculation of the EC50 and its confidence interval when subtoxic stimulus is present. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 25:25-32.
35. Venitt S, Parry J. 1984. Mutagenicity Testing: A Practical Approach. Oxford/Washington, DC:IRL Press.
36. vom Saal FS, Hughes C. 2005. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 113:926-933.
37. vom Saal FS, Richter CA, Ruhlen RR, Nagel SC, Timms BG, Welshons WV. 2005. The importance of appropriate controls, animal feed, and animal models in interpreting results from low-dose studies of bisphenol A. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 73:140-145.
38. vom Saal FS, Welshons WV. 2006. Large effects from small exposures. II. The importance of positive controls in low-dose research on bisphenol A. Environ Res 100:50-76.
39. Woutersen RA, Jonker D, Stevenson H, Biesebeek JDT, Slob W. 2001. The benchmark approach applied to a 28-day toxicity study with Rhodorsil Silane in rats: the impact of increasing the number of dose groups. Food Chem Toxicol 39:697-707.