Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32191327›Full record

ReviewToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2020

Accounting for Multiple Comparisons in Statistical Analysis of the Extensive Bioassay Data on Glyphosate.

Kenny Crump, Edmund Crouch, Daniel Zelterman, Casey Crump, Joseph Haseman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ecotoxicology of Glyphosate, Its Formulants, and Environmental Degradation Products.Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology · 2021
    Article
  2. Questioning Existing Cancer Hazard Evaluation Standards in the Name of Statistics.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kenny CrumpRuston, Louisiana 71270.
Edmund CrouchGreen Toxicology, Brookline, Massachusetts 02445.
Daniel ZeltermanBiostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8034.
Casey CrumpDepartments of Family Medicine and Community Health and of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029.
Joseph HasemanJ.K. Haseman Consulting, Raleigh, North Carolina 27614-7886.
Gad Consulting Services (United States) · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide worldwide. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed glyphosate cancer bioassays and human studies and declared that the evidence for carcinogenicity of glyphosate is sufficient in experimental animals. We analyzed 10 glyphosate rodent bioassays, including those in which IARC found evidence of carcinogenicity, using a multiresponse permutation procedure that adjusts for the large number of tumors eligible for statistical testing and provides valid false-positive probabilities. The test statistics for these permutation tests are functions of p values from a standard test for dose-response trend applied to each specific type of tumor. We evaluated 3 permutation tests, using as test statistics the smallest p value from a standard statistical test for dose-response trend and the number of such tests for which the p value is less than or equal to .05 or .01. The false-positive probabilities obtained from 2 implementations of these 3 permutation tests are: smallest p value: .26, .17; p values ≤ .05: .08, .12; and p values ≤ .01: .06, .08. In addition, we found more evidence for negative dose-response trends than positive. Thus, we found no strong evidence that glyphosate is an animal carcinogen. The main cause for the discrepancy between IARC's finding and ours appears to be that IARC did not account for the large number of tumor responses analyzed and the increased likelihood that several of these would show statistical significance simply by chance. This work provides a more comprehensive analysis of the animal carcinogenicity data for this important herbicide than previously available.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryBiological AssayCarcinogenicity TestsDisease Models, AnimalGlycineHerbicidesHumansNeoplasmsUnited StatesGlycineHerbicidescarcinogenesisglyphosatemultiple comparisonsrodent bioassay

Identifiers

PMID32191327
OpenAlexW3011244604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.