Skip to main content

Analysis of Dose–Response Relationship Based on Categorical Outcomes

  • Chapter
Dose Finding in Drug Development

Part of the book series: Statistics for Biology and Health ((SBH))

Abstract

In an eloquent article prepared in defense of the dichotomy, Lewis (2004) wrote that one of the most important ways in which we learned to understand the world was to describe complicated phenomena using simple categories. Thus, it is hardly surprising that medical researchers often seek to categorize data in their attempt to make sense of unfamiliar measurement scales and treatment effects of uncertain implication. For this reason, threshold values based on continuous measurements are frequently used to help guide the decision to initiate medical interventions. Examples include a diastolic blood pressure greater than 90, a fasting cholesterol level higher than 200, and a CD4 count lower than 200. Normal ranges were constructed to screen subjects for possible lab abnormalities. Even though this black-and-white dichotomy appears to be crude in many situations, its simplicity helps human minds make decisions, decisions that are often binary in nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agresti, A. 2000. Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, P. 1955. Tests for linear trends in proportions. Biometrics 11:375–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, P., and Budde, M. 1994. Multiple testing for detecting efficient dose steps. Biometrical Journal 36:3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, P., Rohmel, J., Maurer, W., and Hothorn, L. 1998. Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Statistics in Medicine 17:2133–2146.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.I., and Wolfe, D.A. 1990. A study of distribution-free tests for umbrella alternatives. Biometrical Journal 32:47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, C. 1987. The analysis of a titration study. Statistics in Medicine 6:583–590.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang-Stein, C., and Tong, D.M. 1995. Multiple comparison procedures for comparing several treatments with a control based on binary data. Statistics in Medicine 14:2509–2522.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang-Stein, C., and Agresti, A. 1997. A review of tests for detecting a monotone dose–response relationship with ordinal response data. Statistics in Medicine 16:2599–2618.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dunnett, C.W. 1965. A multiple comparisons procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. Journal of the American Statistical Association 60:573–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M.F., and Tukey, J.W. 1950. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21:607–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grizzle, J.E., Starmer, C.F. and Koch, G.G. (1969) Analysis of categorical data by linear models. Biometrics 25, 489–504.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heeren, T., and D’Agostino, R. 1987. Robustness of the two independent sample t-test when applied to ordinal scale data. Statistics in Medicine 6:79–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn, L.A., and Hauschke, D. 2000. Identifying the maximum safe dose: A multiple testing approach. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 10:15–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, J.C. 1996. Multiple Comparisons—Theory and Methods. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonckheere, A.R. 1954. A distribution-free K sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika 41:133–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J.A. 2004. In defence of the dichotomy. Pharmaceutical Statistics 3:77–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancuso, J.Y., Ahn, H. and Chen, J.J. (2001) Order-restricted dose-related trend tests. Statistics in Medicine 20, 2305–2318.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mantel, N. 1963. Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom: extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58:690–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, R., Peritz, E., and Gabriel, K.R. 1976. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika 63:655–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, P. 1980. Regression model for ordinal data (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 42:109–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruberg, S.J. 1995. Dose-response studies I: Some design considerations. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 5:1–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruberg, S.J. 1995. Dose-response studies II: Analysis and interpretation. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 5:15–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS, version 9.0. 2003. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senn, S. 2003. Disappointing dichotomies. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2:239–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StatXact 1995. StatXact3 for Windows: Statistical Software for Exact Nonparametric Inference, User Manual. Cytel Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamhane, A.C., Hochberg, Y., and Dunnett, C.W. 1996. Multiple test procedures for dose finding. Biometrics 52:21–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Terpstra, T.J. 1952. The asymptotic normality and consistency of Kendall’s test against trend, when ties are present in one ranking. Indigationes Mathematicae 14:327–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfall, P.H., Tobias, R.D., Rom, D., Wolfinger, R.D., and Hochberg, Y. 1999. Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Tests Using the SAS System. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, J. 1993. Sample size calculations for ordered categorical data. Statistics in Medicine 12, 2257–2271.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • William, D.A. 1971. A test for difference between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics 27:103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, W.K., and Lachenbruch, P.A. 1998. Designing studies for dose response. Statistics in Medicine 15:343–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chuang-Stein, C., Li, Z. (2006). Analysis of Dose–Response Relationship Based on Categorical Outcomes. In: Ting, N. (eds) Dose Finding in Drug Development. Statistics for Biology and Health. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-33706-7_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics