跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究动物致癌试验中的历史对照与趋势检验,未明确提供所列因果识别或其他细分方法的依据。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Shyamal D Peddada
Gregg E Dinse
Grace E Kissling

比较肿瘤发生率时纳入历史对照数据

研究问题
动物致癌研究中,如何正式纳入历史对照肿瘤发生率,并在考虑研究间差异和生存情况后检验剂量相关趋势?
方法与思路
作者提出生存调整的趋势检验,将历史对照数据与当前研究结合,并显式处理不同研究之间对照肿瘤发生率的变异。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称模拟显示该检验相对现行方法表现良好,能辅助解释少见肿瘤;所举案例纳入历史对照后改变了显著性判断。
阅读关注点
应核对历史对照的筛选与可比性、研究间变异的建模、生存调整方式,以及不同背景发生率下检验水平和功效的表现。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;不能推断其他版本变化。个案显著性变化不能证明普遍优越性,摘要未列出全部模拟条件。

原文摘要

Animal carcinogenicity studies, such as those conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), focus on detecting trends in tumor rates across dose groups. Over time, the NTP has compiled vast amounts of data on tumors in control animals. Currently, this information is used informally, without the benefit of statistical tests for carcinogenicity that directly incorporate historical data on control animals. This article proposes a survival-adjusted test for detecting dose-related trends in tumor incidence rates, which incorporates data on historical control rates and formally accounts for variation in these rates among studies. An extensive simulation, based on a wide range of realistic situations, demonstrates that the proposed test performs well in comparison to the current NTP test, which does not incorporate historical control data. In particular, our test can aid in interpreting the occurrence of a few tumors in treated animals that are rarely seen in controls. One such example, which motivates our work, concerns the analysis of histiocytic sarcoma in the NTP's 2-year cancer bioassay of benzophenone. Whereas the occurrence of three histiocytic sarcomas in female rats was not significant according to the current NTP testing procedure (P = 0.074), it was highly significant (P = 0.004) when control data from six recent historical studies were included and our test was applied to the combined data.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文