Cargando…

Comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the toxicity or effectiveness of two or more toxicants in a specific population often requires specialized statistical software to calculate and compare median lethal doses (LD(50)s). Tests for equality of LD(50)s using probit regression with parallel slopes have been implemen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lei, Chengfeng, Sun, Xiulian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173863/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30290834
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40360-018-0250-1
_version_ 1783361199221506048
author Lei, Chengfeng
Sun, Xiulian
author_facet Lei, Chengfeng
Sun, Xiulian
author_sort Lei, Chengfeng
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Evaluating the toxicity or effectiveness of two or more toxicants in a specific population often requires specialized statistical software to calculate and compare median lethal doses (LD(50)s). Tests for equality of LD(50)s using probit regression with parallel slopes have been implemented in many software packages, while tests for cases of arbitrary slopes are not generally available. METHODS: In this study, we established probit-log(dose) regression models and solved them by the maximum likelihood method using Microsoft Excel. The z- and χ(2)-tests were used to assess significance and goodness of fit to the probit regression models, respectively. We calculated the lethal doses (LDs) of the toxicants at different significance levels and their 95% confidence limits (CLs) based on an accurate estimation of log(LD) variances. We further calculated lethal dose ratios and their 95% CLs for two examples without assuming parallel slopes following the method described by Robertson, et al., 2017. RESULTS: We selected representative toxicology datasets from the literature as case studies. For datasets without natural responses in the control group, the slopes, intercepts, χ(2) statistics and LDs calculated using our method were identical to those calculated using Polo-Plus and SPSS software, and the 95% CLs of the lethal dose ratios between toxicants were close to those calculated using Polo-Plus. For datasets that included natural responses in the control group, our results were also close to those calculated using Polo-Plus and SPSS. CONCLUSION: This procedure yielded accurate estimates of lethal doses and 95% CLs at different significance levels as well as the lethal dose ratios and 95% CLs between two examples. The procedure could be used to assess differences in the toxicities of two examples without the assumption of parallelism between probit-log(dose) regression lines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40360-018-0250-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6173863
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61738632018-10-15 Comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes Lei, Chengfeng Sun, Xiulian BMC Pharmacol Toxicol Technical Advance BACKGROUND: Evaluating the toxicity or effectiveness of two or more toxicants in a specific population often requires specialized statistical software to calculate and compare median lethal doses (LD(50)s). Tests for equality of LD(50)s using probit regression with parallel slopes have been implemented in many software packages, while tests for cases of arbitrary slopes are not generally available. METHODS: In this study, we established probit-log(dose) regression models and solved them by the maximum likelihood method using Microsoft Excel. The z- and χ(2)-tests were used to assess significance and goodness of fit to the probit regression models, respectively. We calculated the lethal doses (LDs) of the toxicants at different significance levels and their 95% confidence limits (CLs) based on an accurate estimation of log(LD) variances. We further calculated lethal dose ratios and their 95% CLs for two examples without assuming parallel slopes following the method described by Robertson, et al., 2017. RESULTS: We selected representative toxicology datasets from the literature as case studies. For datasets without natural responses in the control group, the slopes, intercepts, χ(2) statistics and LDs calculated using our method were identical to those calculated using Polo-Plus and SPSS software, and the 95% CLs of the lethal dose ratios between toxicants were close to those calculated using Polo-Plus. For datasets that included natural responses in the control group, our results were also close to those calculated using Polo-Plus and SPSS. CONCLUSION: This procedure yielded accurate estimates of lethal doses and 95% CLs at different significance levels as well as the lethal dose ratios and 95% CLs between two examples. The procedure could be used to assess differences in the toxicities of two examples without the assumption of parallelism between probit-log(dose) regression lines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40360-018-0250-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6173863/ /pubmed/30290834 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40360-018-0250-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Lei, Chengfeng
Sun, Xiulian
Comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes
title Comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes
title_full Comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes
title_fullStr Comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes
title_full_unstemmed Comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes
title_short Comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes
title_sort comparing lethal dose ratios using probit regression with arbitrary slopes
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173863/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30290834
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40360-018-0250-1
work_keys_str_mv AT leichengfeng comparinglethaldoseratiosusingprobitregressionwitharbitraryslopes
AT sunxiulian comparinglethaldoseratiosusingprobitregressionwitharbitraryslopes