Transition of Japanâ€™s statistical tools by decision tree for quantitative data obtained from the general repeated dose administration toxicity studies in rodents
Keywords:Decision Tree, Repeated Dose Administration Study, Statistical Significant Difference, Statistical Method.
Statistical significance is one of important criteria on judgment of regulatory toxicological testing. The decision tree for analysing quantitative data obtained from repeated dose administration studies in rodents has been in use in Japan around 1981. Since then, several authors proposed improved versions of the decision tree incorporating all possible situations of statistical analysis normally encountered in such studies. Recently, a decision tree, which traces a simple route, unlike the previously proposed ones which trace complex routes has been proposed by a few researchers in Japan. While tracing to the most appropriate statistical tool using a decision tree, we propose to consider following points which also play a significant role in selecting the most appropriate statistical tool: (1) statistical tools that fails to detect a significant difference in the low dose group, (2) use of the one-sided test with high power to detect a significant difference compared with two-sided, (3) as far as possible avoid carrying out statistical analysis on the transformed data, since the analytical result of such data is difficult to interpret, (4) it is important to mention what statistical tools of the decision tree are used for the analysis, (5) examine the data for both normality and homogeneity and (6) for testing homogeneity, use Leveneâ€™s test. Selection of widely accepted statistical tools is usually preferred to less popular and complex statistical analysis. It has been observed that in recent years the preferred statistical tools for analyzing quantitative data obtained from toxicity studied are of simple in nature but with high power to detect a significant difference.
Mitsumori K, Usui T, Takahashi K, Shirasu Y. Twenty-four month chronic toxicity studies of dichlorodisopropyl ether in mice. J Pesticide Sci. 1979; 4(3): 323â€“335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.4.323.
Maita K, Hirano, M, Mitsumori K, Takahashi K, Shirasu T. Subchronic toxicity studies with zinc sulfate in mice and rats. J Pesticide Sci. 1981; 6(3): 327â€“336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.6.327.
Hashimoto K, Imai K, Yoshimura S, Ohtaki T. Toxicity evaluation of a potential inhibitor of angiotension converting enzyme, 3. Twelve months studies on the chronic toxicity of captopril in rats. J Toxicol Sci. 1981; 6 (Supple II): 215â€“246. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.6.SupplementII_215.
Shinpo K, Yokoi Y, Fujiwara S. General toxicity of Î±, Î²-adrenoceptor- blocking agent labetalol hydrochloride, 3th. 90-day oral administration toxicity and recovery studies in rats. J Toxicol Sci. 1981; 6(1): 37â€“59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.6.37.
Hirayama H, Wada S, Shikuma H, et al. Acute toxicity and subacute oral toxicity tests of thymoxamine hydrochloride (M-101) in rats. Kisotorinsho. 1982; 16: 1147â€“1173.
Shimazu H, Takeda K, Onodera C. et al. Intravenous chronic toxicity of lentinan in rats: 6-month treated and 3-month recovery. J Toxicol Sci. 1980; 5(Supple): 33â€“57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.5.Supplement_33.
Takeuchi M, Iwata M, Kiguchi M, Kaga M, Shimpo K. Chronic toxicity study of AC-1370 sodium, an antibiotics, intravenously administration in rats. J Toxicol Sci. 1984; 9(4): 363â€“388. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.9.363.
Imoto S, Yahata A, Kosaka M, et al. Peri- and postnatal study on halopredone acetate in rats. J Toxicol Sci. 1985; 10(Supple II): 105â€“122. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.10.SupplementI_105.
Kobayashi, K. Dunnett's multiple comparison tests. Bull. Jap Soc Biopharm Stat. 1983; No. 10: 11â€“15.
Yamazaki M, Noguchi Y, Tanda M, Shintani S. Statistical method appropriates for general toxicological studies in rats. J Takeda Res Lab. 1981; 40 (3/4): 163â€“187.
Gad CS, Weil SW. Statistics and experimental design for toxicologists. The Telford Press Inc., NJ U.S.A., 1986; pp 18.
Sano M, Okayama, K. P value programs and highly accurate percent point table of one and two sided tests for Dunnett multiple comparison test. Jap Soc Biopharm Stat. 1990; No. 32: 21â€“44.
Hamada C, Yoshino K, Matsumoto K, Nomura M, Yoshimura I. Three-type algorithm for statistical analysis in chronic toxicity studies. J Toxicol Sci. 1998; 23(3): 173â€“181. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.23.3_173.
Kobayashi K, Kanamori M, Ohhori K, Takeuchi H. A new decision tree method for statistical analysis of quantitative data obtained in toxicity studies on rodents. San Ei Shi. 2000; 42(4): 125â€“129.
Sakaki H, Igarashi S, Ikeda T, et al. Statistical method appropriate for general toxicological studies in rats. J Toxicol Sci. 2000; 25(4 app): 71â€“81.
Takizawa T, Igarashi T, Imamizo, H, et al. A study on the consistency between flagging by statistical tests and biological evaluation. Drug Information Journal. 2000; 34(2): 501â€“509.
Kobayashi K, Pillai KS, Suzuki M, Wang J. Do we need to examine the quantitative data obtained from toxicity studies for both normality and homogeneity of variance? J Environ Biol. 2008; 29(1): 47â€“52.
Finney DJ. Thoughts suggested by a recent paper: Questions on non-parametric analysis of quantitative data (Letter to editor). J Toxicol Sci. 1955; 20(2): 165â€“170.
Chemical Substances Control Law (1986): http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/kasinn/genkou/kasinhou04.html.
MHLW (2014): http://dra4.nihs.go.jp/mhlw_data/jsp/SearchPage.jsp. Accessed July 31, 2014.
Kobayashi K, Pillai KS, Sakuratani Y, Abe T, Kamata E, Hayashi M. Evaluation of statistical tools used in short-term repeated dose administration toxicity studies with rodents. J Toxicol Sci. 2008; 33(1): 97â€“104. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.33.97.
OECD TG 407 OECD GUIDELINES FOR THE TESTING OF CHEMICALS, Repeated Dose 28-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents. Adopted: 3 October 2008, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/iccvam/suppdocs/feddocs/oecd/oecdtg407-2008.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2014.
NTP (2014) http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=D1512B41-F1F6-975E-7FBA3 D4A2132F1C1 and http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=D16D6C59-F1F6-975E-7D23D 1519B8CD7A5. Accessed July 31, 2014.
Dunnett CW. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. Am Stat Assoc. 1955; 50: 1096â€“1211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1955.10501294.
Williams DA. A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics. 1971; 27: 103â€“117. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2528930.
Williams DA. The comparison of several dose levels with zero dose control. Biometrics. 1972; 28: 519â€“531. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2556164.
Shirley EA. Non-parametric equivalent of Williams' test for contrasting increasing dose levels of a treatment. Biometrics 1977; 33: 386â€“389. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529789.
Dunn OJ. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 1964; 6: 106â€“107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1964.10490181.
Jonckheere A. A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika 1954; 41: 133â€“145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/41.1-2.133.
Hollander M, Wolf DA. Nonparametric statistical methods. John Wiley and Sons, NY U.S.A., 1973; pp 120â€“123.
Kobayashi K, Pillai KS, Guhatakurta S, Cherian KM, Ohnishi M. Statistical tools for analysing the data obtained from repeated dose toxicity studies with rodents. A comparison of the statistical tools used in Japan with that of used in other countries. J Environ Biol. 2011; 32(1): 11â€“16.
Hagiwara A, Imai N, Numano T, et al. A twenty eight-day repeated dose toxicity study of black soybean extract in Sprague-Dawley rats. J Toxicol Sci. 2010; 35(1): 87â€“96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.35.87.
Kojima S, Sasaki J, Tomita M, et al. Multiple organ toxicity, including hypochromic anemia, following repeated dose oral administration of phenobarbital (PB) in rats. J Toxicol Sci. 2009; 34(5): 527â€“539. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.34.527.
Honda K, Enoshima T, Oshikata T, et al. Toxicity studies of Asahi Kasei PI, purified phosphatidylinositol from soy lecithin. J Toxicol Sci. 2009; 34(3): 265â€“280. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.34.265.
Tamano S, Yoshino H, Ichihara T, et al., 28-day oral toxicity of macrophomopsis gum in F344/DuCrj rats. Jpn J Food Chem 2005; 12(3): 128â€“134.
Ikeya M, Ishigami M, Hatoyama K, et al. A 90-day oral (dietary) toxicity study of Japanese persimmon color cocoa brown PP in rats. Jpn J Food Chem. 2004; 11(1): 7â€“12.
Bretz F. An extension of the Williams' trend test to general unbalanced linear models. Comp Stat Data Anal. 2006; 50 (7): 1735â€“1748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2005.02.005.
Kobayashi K, Sakuratani Y, Abe T, et al. Statistical analysis methods of quantitative value obtained from short-term repeated dose studies in rats. PHARMASTAGE. 2009; 9 (3): 62â€“69.
Nagata Y, Yoshida M. Tohkeiteki-tajuhikaku no Kiso. Scientist, Tokyo JPN, 1997; pp 45â€“52.
Inaba T. Problem of multiple comparison tests for evaluation of enzyme inhibitor X1. Bull Jap Soc Biopharm Stat. 1994; No. 40: 33â€“36.
Kobayashi K, Watanabe K, Inoue H. Questioning the usefulness of the non-parametric analysis of quantitative data by transformation into ranked data in toxicity studies. J Toxicol Sci. 1995; 20(1): 47â€“53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.20.47.
Steel RGD. A multiple comparison rank sum test: Treatments versus control. Biometrics. 1959; 15: 560â€“572. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2527654.
Kobayashi K. Views inspired from a recent paper: Recommendation on the nonparametric Dunnett test using collaborative work on the evaluation of ovarian toxicity (Letter to editor). J Toxicol Sci. 2009; 34(3): 355â€“356. http://dx.doi.org/10.2131/jts.34.355.
Sakuma A. Yakko-Hyouka I. Tokyodaigaku-shupankai, Tokyo JPN, 1997; pp 56.
Yoshimura I, Oohashi Y. Statistical analysis for toxicology data. Chijin-shokan, Tokyo JPN, 1996; pp 102â€“104.
Nagata Y, Yoshida M. Tohkeiteki-tajuhikaku no Kiso. Scientist, Tokyo JPN, 1997; pp 70â€“74.
Yoshimura I, Oohashi Y. Statistical analysis for toxicology data. Chijin-Shokan, Tokyo JPN, 1996; pp 111â€“112.
Kobayashi K, Ohori K, Kobayashi M, Takeuchi H. Choice of methods for statistical analysis of quantitative data obtained from toxicological studies. San Ei Shi. 1997; 39(3): 86â€“92.
Takizawa T. Notes of statistical processing method in decision tree method. Bull Jap Soc Biopharm Stat. 1991; No. 34: 54.
Kobayashi, K. A comparison of one- and two-side tests for judging significant differences in quantitative data obtained in toxicological bioassay of laboratory animals. J Occup Health. 1997; 39(1): 29â€“35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1539/joh.39.29.
Nakamura, G. Practice, statistical analyses. Kaimei-sha, Tokyo JPN, 1986; pp 106â€“107.
Yoshimura I, Oohashi Y. Statistical analysis for toxicology data. Chijin-shokan, Tokyo JPN, 1992; pp 92, 110.
Ishii S. Bio-statistical analyses guidance. Baihukan, Tokyo JPN, 1975; pp 68.
Kobayashi, K. Methods of statistical analysis of quantitative data obtained by toxicological bioassay using rodents in Japan: Historical transition of the decision tree. J Environ Biol. 2001; 22(1): 1â€“9.
Levene H. Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Contributions to probability and statistics (Olkin I, Ghurye G, Hoeffding W, Madow WG, Mann HB. eds), Stanford University Press, CA U.S.A., 1960; 278â€“292.
OECD TG 210 OECD GUIDELINES FOR THE TESTING OF CHEMICALS, Fish, Early-life Stage Toxicity Test, Adopted: 26 July 2013, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9713191e.pdf?expires=1400741752&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=0CDA5 5EDC6702A891C6CA60A8AC081ED. Accessed July 31, 2014.
LicenseAuthors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under aÂ Creative Commons Attribution Licensethat allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work''s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal''s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (SeeÂ The Effect of Open Access).