Hormesis: A conversation with a critic

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 117, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1339-1343

  Calabrese, Edward J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive response; Biphasic; Dose response; Hormesis; Hormetic; Linear dose response; Risk assessment; Threshold dose response; U shaped

Indexed keywords

ANTICONVULSIVE AGENT; ANXIOLYTIC AGENT; ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; CALCULATION; DATA BASE; DRUG APPROVAL; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HORMESIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; POLICY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TOXICITY; TOXICOLOGY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 69949098259     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.0901002     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Academie Nationale de Medecine. 2005. Dose-Effect Relationships and Estimation of the Carcinogenic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation. Available: http://www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/ rapports/pdf/dose_effet_07_04_05_gb.pdf [accessed 21 July 2009].
2. Belia S, Fidler F, Williams J, Cumming G. 2005. Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. Psychol Methods 10:389-396.
3. Belz RG. 2008. Stimulation versus inhibition-bioactivity of parthenin, a phytochemical from Parthenium hysterophorus L. Dose Response 6:80-96.
4. Calabrese EJ. 2004. Hormesis-basic, generalizable, central to toxicology and a method to improve the risk-assessment process. Int J Occup Environ Health 10:466-467.
5. Calabrese EJ. 2005. Historical blunders: how toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right. Cell Mol Biol 51:643-654.
6. Calabrese EJ. 2008a. Alzheimer's disease drugs: an application of the hormetic dose-response model. Crit Rev Toxicol 38:419-452.
7. Calabrese EJ. 2008b. An assessment of anxiolytic drug screening tests: hormetic dose responses predominate. Crit Rev Toxicol 38:489-542.
8. Calabrese EJ. 2008c. Hormesis and medicine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 66:594-617.
9. Calabrese EJ. 2008d. Modulation of the epileptic seizure threshold: implications of biphasic dose responses. Crit Rev Toxicol 38:543-556
10. Calabrese EJ. 2009a. Getting the dose-response wrong: why hormesis became marginalized and the threshold model accepted. Arch Toxicol 83:227-247.
11. Calabrese EJ. 2009b. The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Arch Toxicol 83:203-225.
12. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. 2003b. The hormetic dose response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 71:246-250.
13. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. 2003a. Hormesis at the National Toxicology Program (NTP): evidence of hormetic dose responses in NTP dose-range studies. Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med 1:455-467.
14. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. 2001. The frequency of U-shaped dose-responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol Sci 62:330-338.
15. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. 2002. Defining hormesis. Hum Exp Toxicol 21:91-97.
16. Calabrese EJ, Blain RB. 2005. The occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: an overview. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 202:289-301.
17. Calabrese EJ, Blain RB. 2009. Hormesis and plant biology. Environ Pollut 157:42-48.
18. Calabrese EJ, Stanek EJ III, Nascarella MA, Hoffmann GR. 2008. Hormesis predicts low-dose responses better than threshold models. Int J Toxicol 7:369-378.
19. Calabrese EJ, Staudenmayer JW, Stanek EJ. 2006a. Drug development and hormesis: changing conceptual understanding of the dose response creates new challenges and opportunities for more effective drugs. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 9:117-123.
20. Calabrese EJ, Staudenmayer JW, Stanek EJ, Hoffmann GR. 2006b. Hormesis outperforms threshold model in NCI anti-tumor drug screening data. Toxicol Sci 94:368-378.
21. Calabrese EJ, Staudenmayer JW, Stanek EJ III, Hoffmann GR. 2007. Hormesis and high throughput studies: Crump's analysis lacks credibility [Letter]. Toxicol Sci 98:602-603.
22. Cook RR, Calabrese EJ. 2006a. Hormesis is biology, not religion [Letter]. Environ Health Perspect 114:A688.
23. Cook RR, Calabrese EJ. 2006b. The importance of hormesis to public health. Environ Health Perspect 114:1631-1635.
24. Crump KS. 2007. Limitations in the National Cancer Institute antitumor drug screening database for evaluating hormesis [Letter]. Toxicol Sci 98:599-601.
25. Cumming G. 2009. Inference by eye: reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat Med 28:205-220.
26. Cumming G, Finch S. 2005. Inference by eye. Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. Am Psychol 60:170-180.
27. Finch S, Thomason N, Cumming G. 2002. Past and future American Psychological Association guidelines for statistical practice. Theory Psychol 12:825.
28. Hoffmann GR. 2009. A perspective on the scientific, philosophical, and policy dimensions of hormesis. Dose Response 7:1-51.
29. Mattson M, Calabrese EJ. 2008. Best in small doses. New Sci 199:36-39.
30. Mushak P. 2009. Ad hoc and fast forward: the science and control of hormesis growth and development. Environ Health Perspect 117:1333-1338.
31. Radak Z, Chung HY, Koltai E, Taylor AW, Goto S. 2008. Exercise, oxidative stress and hormesis. Ageing Res Rev 7:34-42.
32. Rattan SIS. 2008. Hormesis in aging. Ageing Res Rev 7:63-78.
33. Scott BR. 2008. It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm-one that acknowledges hormesis. Dose Response 6:333-351.
34. Vichi P, Tritton TR. 1992. Adriamycin-protection from cell-death by removal of extracellular drug. Cancer Res 52:4135-4138.