Summary
A biologically motivated dose response model is proposed for rough work where it is too difficult to take account of other relevant factors such as timing of exposure and delay of response. This model leads in a logical way to a Weibull dose response curve with parameters which can be naturally interpreted in terms of threshold and order of contact (for example linearity) in the low dose range. The traditional logit and probit models do not allow explicit study of these important issues. The several simple alternative models are compared by fitting them to sets of data. The Weibull does as well as but no better than the probit and logit but these three are superior to the other alternatives considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barlow, R. E., Bartholomew, D. J., Bremner, J. M., and Brunk, H. D., 1972, “Statistical Inference Under Order Restrictions,” Wiley, New York.
Bauer, H. and Kaufmann, B. P., 1938, X-ray induced chromosomal alterations in drosophila melanogaster, Genetics, 23:610–30.
Brent, R. P., 1973, “Algorithms for Minimization without Derivatives,” Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Bryan, W. R. and Shimkin, M. B., 1943, Quantitative analysis of dose-response data obtained with three carcinogenic hydorcarbons in strain C3# male mice, J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst., 3:503–31.
Chand, N. and Hoel, D. G., 1974, A comparison of models for determining safe levels of environmental agents, Reliability and Biometry, F. Proschan and R. J. Serfling, eds., 681-700. SIAM.
Cox, D. R., 1970, “The Analysis of Binary Data,” Methuen, London.
Finney, D. J., 1964, “Probit Analysis,” Cambridge, New York.
Gass, G. H., Coats, D., and Graham, N., 1964, Carcinogenic dose-response curve to oral diethylstilbesterol, J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst., 33:971–77.
Kaplan, H. S. and Brown, M. B., 1952, A quantitative dose-response study of lymphoid-tumor development in irradiated C57 black mice, J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst., 13:185–208.
Lewis, H. W., 1980, The safety of fission reactors, Sci. Amer., 242: 53–65.
Mann, N. R., Schafer, R. E., and Singpurwall, N. D., 1974, “Methods for Statistical Reliability and Life Data,” Wiley, New York.
Maugh, T. H., 1978, Chemical carcinogens: How dangerous are low doses?, Science, 202:37–41.
Peto, R., Lee, P. N., and Paige, W. S., 1972, Statistical analysis of the bioassay of continuous carcinogens, Br. J. of Cancer, 26:258–61.
Poel, W. G., 1959, Effect of carcinogenic dosage and duration of exposure on skin-tumor induction in mice, J. of the Nat. Cancer Inst., 22:19–43.
Rupert, C. S. and Harm, W., 1966, Reactivation after photobiological damage, Advances in Radiation Biology, 2:2–75.
Thompson, W. A., Jr., 1969, “Applied Probability,” Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Totter, J. R. and Finamore, F. J., 1978, “Dose Responses to Cancerogenic and Mutagenic Treatments,” Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge.
Turner, M. E., Jr., 1975, Some classes of hit-theory models, Math. Biosciences, 23, 219–35.
Whittemore, A. and Keller, J.B., 1978, Quantitative theories of carcinogenesis, SIAM Review, 20:1–30.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thompson, W.A., Funderlic, R.E. (1981). A Simple Threshold Model for the Classical Bioassay Problem. In: Berg, G.G., Maillie, H.D. (eds) Measurement of Risks. Environmental Science Research, vol 21. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4052-2_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4052-2_24
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-4054-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-4052-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive