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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bruner, L H Articles by Curren, R D Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bruner, L H Articles by Curren, R D Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Health Statistics Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An investigation of new toxicity test method performance in validation studies: 2. comparison of three measures of toxicity test performance

The Gillette Company, Gillette Environment, Health & Safety, Needham, Massachusetts 02914, USA; Gillette Environment, Health & Safety, 37 A Street, Needham, Massachusetts 02914, USA;leon_bruner{at}gillette.com

G J Carr

The Procter & Gamble Company, Miami Valley Laboratories, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

J W Harbell

R D Curren

Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA

An area that requires further research is how best to measure test method performance in validation studies and how to set criteria that should be used to judge the adequacy of this performance. The studies reported here were designed to begin an investigation of these questions. Computer simulations were used to generate data sets similar to those that might be obtained from a large validation study. These data were then analysed using three procedures including determination of the 95% prediction interval (PI), calculation of Pearson's correlation coefficient and calculation of the contingent probability statistics (CPS), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The results of this work suggest that of the three approaches examined, quantitative measurements with calculation of the 95% PI provide the most information to allow discrimination between the performance of several different NTMs. The results also suggest that dividing data sets into positive and negative toxicity classifications followed by the calculation of CPS leads to considerable information loss. This loss of information may be so significant that it is not possible in certain circumstances to distinguish between NTMs that are adequate and those that are not.

Key Words: correlation • negative predictive value • positive predictive value • prediction interval • prevalence • sensitivity • specificity • toxicity test performance measurement • toxicity test validation • validation

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 21, No. 6, 313-323 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327102ht253oa


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