Cargando…

Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments.

We compared 121 replicate rodent carcinogenicity assays from the two parts (National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program and literature) of the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB) to estimate the reliability of these experiments. We estimated a concordance of 57% between the overall rodent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gottmann, E, Kramer, S, Pfahringer, B, Helma, C
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2001
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240311/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11401763
_version_ 1782125098057072640
author Gottmann, E
Kramer, S
Pfahringer, B
Helma, C
author_facet Gottmann, E
Kramer, S
Pfahringer, B
Helma, C
author_sort Gottmann, E
collection PubMed
description We compared 121 replicate rodent carcinogenicity assays from the two parts (National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program and literature) of the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB) to estimate the reliability of these experiments. We estimated a concordance of 57% between the overall rodent carcinogenicity classifications from both sources. This value did not improve substantially when additional biologic information (species, sex, strain, target organs) was considered. These results indicate that rodent carcinogenicity assays are much less reproducible than previously expected, an effect that should be considered in the development of structure-activity relationship models and the risk assessment process.
format Text
id pubmed-1240311
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2001
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-12403112005-11-08 Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. Gottmann, E Kramer, S Pfahringer, B Helma, C Environ Health Perspect Research Article We compared 121 replicate rodent carcinogenicity assays from the two parts (National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program and literature) of the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB) to estimate the reliability of these experiments. We estimated a concordance of 57% between the overall rodent carcinogenicity classifications from both sources. This value did not improve substantially when additional biologic information (species, sex, strain, target organs) was considered. These results indicate that rodent carcinogenicity assays are much less reproducible than previously expected, an effect that should be considered in the development of structure-activity relationship models and the risk assessment process. 2001-05 /pmc/articles/PMC1240311/ /pubmed/11401763 Text en
spellingShingle Research Article
Gottmann, E
Kramer, S
Pfahringer, B
Helma, C
Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments.
title Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments.
title_full Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments.
title_fullStr Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments.
title_full_unstemmed Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments.
title_short Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments.
title_sort data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments.
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240311/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11401763
work_keys_str_mv AT gottmanne dataqualityinpredictivetoxicologyreproducibilityofrodentcarcinogenicityexperiments
AT kramers dataqualityinpredictivetoxicologyreproducibilityofrodentcarcinogenicityexperiments
AT pfahringerb dataqualityinpredictivetoxicologyreproducibilityofrodentcarcinogenicityexperiments
AT helmac dataqualityinpredictivetoxicologyreproducibilityofrodentcarcinogenicityexperiments