ArticleArchives of toxicology2020
Alternatives to statistical decision trees in regulatory (eco-)toxicological bioassays.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2020. 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.
- Derivation of guidance values under the EU Drinking Water Directive : the case study of trifluoroacetic acid.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- From raw data to meaningful information: a robust but flexible method to assess in vitro assay responses-lessons learned from a novel Dicentrarchus labrax estrogen screen test.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Using R in Regulatory Toxicology.EXCLI journal · 2022Article
- Deep Learning-Based Available and Common Clinical-Related Feature Variables Robustly Predict Survival in Community-Acquired Pneumonia.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of (eco-) toxicological testing is to experimentally establish a dose or concentration-response and to identify a threshold with a biologically relevant and probably non-random deviation from "normal". Statistical tests aid this process. Most statistical tests have distributional assumptions that need to be satisfied for reliable performance. Therefore, most statistical analyses used in (eco-)toxicological bioassays use subsequent pre- or assumption-tests to identify the most appropriate main test, so-called statistical decision trees. There are however several deficiencies with the approach, based on study design, type of tests used and subsequent statistical testing in general. When multiple comparisons are used to identify a non-random change against negative control, we propose to use robust testing, which can be generically applied without the need of decision trees. Visualization techniques and reference ranges also offer advantages over the current pre-testing approaches. We aim to promulgate the concepts in the (eco-) toxicological community and initiate a discussion for regulatory acceptance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32193567What 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.