Human & Experimental Toxicology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pickrell, J. A
Right arrow Articles by Oehme, F. W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pickrell, J. A
Right arrow Articles by Oehme, F. W
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 24, No. 5, 259-264 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327105ht521oa

Examining the risks and benefits of replacing traditional dose-response with hormesis

John A Pickrell

Comparative Taxicology Laboratories, Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, 1800 N Denison Avenue, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5705, USA pickrell{at}ksu.edu

Frederick W Oehme

Comparative Taxicology Laboratories, Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA

In responding to Drs Calabrese and Baldwin's question, ‘At what point, if ever, should hormesis be employed as the principal dose response default assumption in risk assessment?’, we examined the benefits of replacing traditional dose-response with hormesis. In general, hormesis provides more complete useful information for risk assessment than does traditional dose-response. A major limitation of using hormesis as a default assumption in risk estimation is the difficulty of differentiating complex low-level hormetic responses from the placebo effect. A second limitation is that hormesis merely further defines one response. Most toxicoses have many responses. The most complete information takes all responses and their connections into account.

Key Words: charcoal • hormesis • pulmonary fibrosis • rectal carcinoma • 3 methyl indole


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Evid Based Complement Alternat MedHome page
P. Bellavite, A. Conforti, F. Pontarollo, and R. Ortolani
Immunology and homeopathy. 2. Cells of the immune system and inflammation.
Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., March 1, 2006; 3(1): 13 - 24.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
B. G Callahan
Can hormesis be a default for dose-response?
Human and Experimental Toxicology, May 1, 2005; 24(5): 271 - 273.
[Abstract] [PDF]