IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v12y1992i2p301-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interspecies Extrapolation: A Reexamination of Acute Toxicity Data

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Watanabe
  • Frédéric Y. Bois
  • Lauren Zeise

Abstract

We reanalyze the acute toxicity data on cancer chemotherapeutic agents compiled by Freireich et al.(1) and Schein et al.(2) to derive coefficients of the allometric equation for scaling toxic doses across species (toxic dose =a‐[body weight]b). In doing so, we extend the analysis of Travis and White (Risk Analysis, 1988, 8, 119‐125)by addressing uncertainties inherent in the analysis and by including the hamster data, previously not used. Through Monte Carlo sampling, we specifically account for measurement errors when deriving confidence intervals and testing hypotheses. Two hypotheses are considered: first, that the allometric scaling power (b)varies for chemicals of the type studied; second, that the same scaling power, or “scaling law,” holds for all chemicals in the data set. Following the first hypothesis, in 95% of the cases the allometric power of body weight falls in the range from 0.42‐0.97, with a population mean of 0.74. Assuming the second hypothesis to be true–that the same scaling law is followed for all chemicals–the maximum likelihood estimate of the scaling power is 0.74; confidence bounds on the mean depend on the size of measurement error assumed. Under a “best case” analysis, 95% confidence bounds on the mean are 0.71 and 0.77, similar to the results reported by Travis and White. For alternative assumptions regarding measurement error, the confidence intervals are larger and include 0.67, but not 1.00. Although a scaling power of about 0.75 provides the best fit to the data as a whole, a scaling power of 0.67, corresponding to scaling per unit surface area, is not rejected when the nonhomogeneity of variances is taken into account. Hence, both surface area and 0.75 power scaling are consistent with the Freireich et al. and Schein et al. data sets. To illustrate the potential impact of overestimating the scaling power, we compare reported human MTDs to values extrapolated from mouse LD10s.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Watanabe & Frédéric Y. Bois & Lauren Zeise, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation: A Reexamination of Acute Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 301-310, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:12:y:1992:i:2:p:301-310
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00677.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00677.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00677.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Response to Comments on Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 559-561, December.
    2. Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 531-544, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karen H. Watanabe & Frédéric Y. Bois, 1996. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Physiological Pharmacokinetic Parameter Distributions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 741-754, December.
    2. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.
    3. Thomas H. Slone, 1993. "Body Surface Area Misconceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 375-377, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Curtis C. Travis & Sheri T. Hester, 1990. "Background Exposure to Chemicals: What Is the Risk?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 463-466, December.
    2. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Does EPA Underestimate Cancer Risks by Ignoring Susceptibility Differences?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1780-1784, October.
    3. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.
    4. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.
    5. Daniel Krewski, 1990. "Measuring Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 615-617, December.
    6. Adam M. Finkel, 2014. "EPA Underestimates, Oversimplifies, Miscommunicates, and Mismanages Cancer Risks by Ignoring Human Susceptibility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1785-1794, October.
    7. Adam M. Finkel, 1994. "Risk Assessment Research: Only the Beginning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 907-911, December.
    8. Robert J. Scheuplein & John C. Bowers, 1995. "Dioxin–An Analysis of the Major Human Studies: Comparison with Animal‐Based Cancer Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 319-333, June.
    9. Christopher J. Portier, 1988. "Species Correlation of Chemical Carcinogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 551-553, December.
    10. Seymour J. Garte, 1990. "Communication of Relative Carcinogenic Risks: A Quantitative Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 467-468, December.
    11. Walter W. Piegorsch & Gregory J. Carr & Christopher J. Portier & David G. Hoel, 1992. "Concordance of Carcinogenic Response between Rodent Species: Potency Dependence and Potential Underestimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-121, March.
    12. Alison C. Taylor & John S. Evans & Thomas E. McKone, 1993. "The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 403-412, August.
    13. Kenneth T. Bogen, 1995. "Methods to Approximate Joint Uncertainty and Variability in Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 411-419, June.
    14. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:12:y:1992:i:2:p:301-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.