ArticleRadiation research2013
Practical advice on calculating confidence intervals for radioprotection effects and reducing animal numbers in radiation countermeasure experiments.
Article in Radiation research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of Reducing Animal Numbers in Radiation Countermeasure Experiments from Historic Levels when using Sample Size Calculations.Radiation research · 2023Review
- RRx-001 Radioprotection: Enhancement of Survival and Hematopoietic Recovery in Gamma-Irradiated Mice.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Interval estimators of relative potency in toxicology and radiation countermeasure studies: comparing methods and experimental designs.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2019Article
- A survey of changing trends in modelling radiation lung injury in mice: bringing out the good, the bad, and the uncertain.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2016Review
- A Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Urine from Gamma-Irradiated Non-Human Primates.Journal of proteomics & bioinformaticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The dose of a substance that causes death in P% of a population is called an LDP, where LD stands for lethal dose. In radiation research, a common LDP of interest is the radiation dose that kills 50% of the population by a specified time, i.e., lethal dose 50 or LD50. When comparing LD50 between two populations, relative potency is the parameter of interest. In radiation research, this is commonly known as the dose reduction factor (DRF). Unfortunately, statistical inference on dose reduction factor is seldom reported. We illustrate how to calculate confidence intervals for dose reduction factor, which may then be used for statistical inference. Further, most dose reduction factor experiments use hundreds, rather than tens of animals. Through better dosing strategies and the use of a recently available sample size formula, we also show how animal numbers may be reduced while maintaining high statistical power. The illustrations center on realistic examples comparing LD50 values between a radiation countermeasure group and a radiation-only control. We also provide easy-to-use spreadsheets for sample size calculations and confidence interval calculations, as well as SAS® and R code for the latter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.