Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BICKIS, M.
Right arrow Articles by KREWSKI, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by BICKIS, M.
Right arrow Articles by KREWSKI, D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1989 Oxford University Press

meeting-report

Statistical Issues in the Analysis of the Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassay in Small Rodents: An Empirical Evaluation of Statistical Decision Rules

MIKELIS BICKIS1 and DANIEL KREWSKI

Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Health and Welfare Canada Ottawa, Ontarto, Canada K1A OL2

Received July 15, 1988; revision received October 8, 1988; Data on 49 randomly selected studies from the NCI/NTP Carcinogenesis Bioassay Program were reanalyzed using four statistical decision rules to classify substances as either being negative or falling into one of three categories indicating increasing evidence of oncogenicity. The data available for analysis were the crude marginal counts of numbers of animals with specified lesions, as well as the number of animals surviving at the time the studies were terminated. Statistical analysis was based primarily on the Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend in proportions, with and without the use of historical control information. If only concurrent controls were used, classifications of carcinogenicity obtained in between 34 and 57% of the studies, depending on the decision rule used. The incorporation of historical control information into the Cochran-Armitage test statistic led to almost universal findings of carcinogenicity. The data base assembled here was used to estimate false negative and false positive rates for each of the four decision rules.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.