This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stallard, N. Articles by Whitehead, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stallard, N. Articles by Whitehead, A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reducing animal numbers in the fixed-dose procedure

Department of Applied Statistics, University of Reading, Harry Pitt Building, Whiteknights Road, Reading, RG6 2FN, UK

A. Whitehead

Department of Applied Statistics, University of Reading, Harry Pitt Building, Whiteknights Road, Reading, RG6 2FN, UK

The fixed-dose procedure (FDP) was proposed by the British Toxicology Society (1984) ¹ as an alternative to assessment of acute oral toxicity via estimation of the LD₅₀. The procedure is incorporated in OECD guidelines on acute oral toxicity testing.²

Whitehead and Curnow (1992)³ used a mathematical model to describe the statistical properties of the FDP. This paper uses a simplified model to investigate further the procedure. In particular the effects of altering the number of animals included at each stage in the procedure are evaluated. It is shown that a reduction in the number of animals tested makes little difference to the toxic classifi cation of a substance with a steep dose-response curve, but has increasing effect as the dose-response curve becomes shallower. The simplified model also shows that in the proposed procedure the most likely classification depends on the LD ₇ of the substance tested. Changing the number of animals tested results in the most likely classification depending on other LD values.

The effect of additional variation is also considered. Such variation might arise from within-laboratory differ ences. Although this increases the range of substances for which misclassification is likely, the increase is not much affected by the number of animals tested.

Key Words: fixed-dose procedure • classification probabili ties • animal welfare • LD50 test • acute toxicity

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 315-323 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/096032719501400401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N Stallard, A Whitehead, and P Ridgway Statistical evaluation of the revised fixed-dose procedure Human and Experimental Toxicology, April 1, 2002; 21(4): 183 - 196. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Stallard and A. Whitehead Reply to the letter of Diener and Schlede: FDP and ATC method: a mathe matical comparison. Human & Experimental Toxicology 1995; 14: 974-90 Human and Experimental Toxicology, October 1, 1996; 15(10): 857 - 858. [PDF]

				N. Stallard and A. Whitehead The fixed-dose procedure and the acute-toxic-class method: a mathematical comparison Human and Experimental Toxicology, December 1, 1995; 14(12): 974 - 990. [Abstract] [PDF]