Determination of dose dependence in repeated dose toxicity studies when mid-dose alone is insignificant

Journal of Toxicological Sciences

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 255-260

  Kobayashi, Katsumi ^a,b   Sadasivan Pillai, Kalathil ^c   Michael, Mathews ^c   Cherian, Kotturathu Mammen ^c   Araki, Akihiro ^d   Hirose, Akihiko ^e  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND EVALUATION   (Japan)

^b Shizuoka Prefectural Agriculture and Forestry College   (Japan)

^c A Unit of Frontier Lifeline Hospitals   (India)

^d JAPAN INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ASSOCIATION   (Japan)

^e NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (Japan)

Author keywords

Dose related relationship; Dunnett's test; Jonckheere's trend test; Toxicity study; Williams' test

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE CALCULATION; DRUG INTOXICATION; JONCKHEERE TREND TEST; KIDNEY MASS; LIVER WEIGHT; NONHUMAN; RAT; REPEATED DRUG TOXICITY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WILLIAMS TEST;

ANIMALIA; RODENTIA;

EID: 84859361118     PISSN: 03881350     EISSN: 18803989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2131/jts.37.255     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bamberger, J.R., Ladics, G.S., Hurtt, M.E., Swanson, M.S. and Brocks, W.J. (2000): Subchronic inhalation toxicity of the chlorinated propane 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexachloropropane (HCC-230fa). Toxicol. Sci., 62, 155-165.
2. Bretz, F. (2006): An extension of the Williams trend test to general unbalanced linear models. Comp. Stat. Data Anal., 50, 1735-1748.
3. Campbell, M. (2003): Evidence on the developmental and reproductive toxicity of phenol. Environmental health hazard assessment's reproductive and cancer hazard assessment section. Reproductive and cancer hazard assessment section office of environmental health hazard assessment California environmental protection agency.
4. Dmitrienko, A., Chaung-Stein, C. and D'Agostino, R. (2007): Pharmaceutical statistics using SAS-A practical guide. pp.444, SAS Institute, NC, USA.
5. Dorato, M.A. and Engelhardt, J.A. (2005): The no-observed adverse- effect-level in drug safety evaluations: Use, issues, and definition(s). Reg. Tox. Pharmacol., 42, 265-274.
6. Dunnett, C.W. (1955): A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 50, 1096-1121.
7. EPA (2000): United States Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.3050, Repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study in rodents, EPA 712-C-00-366 2000
8. Gad, S. and Weil, C.S. (1986): Statistics and experimental design for toxicologists. pp. 86, Telford Press, New Jersey, USA.
9. Gupta, R.C. (2007): Veterinary toxicology-basic and clinical principles. pp.1203, Academic Press, New York, USA.
10. Jonckheere, A.R. (1954): A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika, 41, 133-145.
11. Kobayashi, K., Pillai, K.S., Michael, M., Cherian, K.M. and Ohnishi, M. (2010): Determining NOEL/NOAEL in repeateddose toxicity studies, when the low dose group shows significant difference in quantitative data. Lab. Anim. Res., 26, 133-137.
12. Ladics, G.S., Kennedy, G., O'Connor, J., Everds, N., Malley, L.A., Frame, S.R., Gannon, S., Jung, R., Roth, T., Iwai, H. and Shinya, S. (2008): 90-day oral gavage toxicity study of 8-2 fluorotelomer alcohol in rats. Drug and Chemical Toxicology, 31, 189-216.
13. Nagata, Y. and Yoshida, M. (1997): Tokeiteki-tajuhikakuho-no-kiso. pp. 45-52+176-177, Scientist Co., Ltd, Tokyo.
14. Neuhäuser, M. and Hothorn, L.A. (1998): An analogue of Jonckheere's trend test for parametric and dichotomous data. Biomaterial. J., 40, 11-19.
15. Neuhäuser, M., Liu, P.Y. and Hothorn, L.A. (1998): Nonparametric tests for trend: Jonckheere's test, a modification and a maximum test. Biomaterial. J., 40, 899-909.
16. OECD (1996): Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals. Combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test, No. 422. OECD, France.
17. OECD (2008): Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals. Repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study in rodents. No. 407, OECD, France.
18. Sakaki, H., Igarashi, S., Ikeda, T., Imamizo, K., Omichi, T., Kadota, M., Kawaguchi, T., Takizawa, T., Tsukamoto, O., Terai, K., Tozuka, K., Hirata, J., Handa, J., Mizuma, H., Murakami, M., Yamada, M. and Yokouchi, H. (2000): Statistical method appropriate for general toxicological studies in rats. J. Toxicol. Sci., 25, 71-98.
19. Shirley, E. (1997): A non-parametric equivalent of Williams' test for contrasting increasing dose levels of a treatment. Biometrics, 33, 386-389.
20. Stout, M.D., Bodes, E., Schoonhoven, R., Upton, P.B., Travlos, G.S. and Swenberg, J.M. (2008): Toxicity, DNA binding, and cell proliferation in male F344 rats following short-term gavage exposures to trans-2-hexenal. Toxicol. Pathol., 36, 232-246.
21. Tennekes, H., Kaufmann, W., Dammann, M. and van Ravenzwaay, B. (2004): The stability of historical control data for common neoplasms in laboratory rats and the implications for carcinogenic risk assessment. Reg. Tox. Pharmacol., 40, 293-304.
22. Williams, D.A. (1971): A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics, 27, 103-117.
23. Williams, D.A. (1972): The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics, 28, 519-531.