ArticleBirth defects research2023
Analysis of incidence data in developmental toxicity studies: Statistical tests to account for litter effects in fetal defect data.
Article in Birth defects research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen analyzing fetal defect incidence in laboratory animal studies, correlation in responses within litters (i.e., litter effects) can lead to increased false-positive rates if litter effects are not incorporated into the analysis. Studies of fetal defects require analysis methods that are robust across a broad range of defect types, including those with zero or near-zero incidence rates in control groups.
methodsA simulation study compared power and false-positive rates for six approaches across a range of background defect rates and litter size distributions. Statistical methods evaluated included ignoring the litter effect as well as parametric and nonparametric approaches based on litter proportions, generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), the Rao-Scott Cochran-Armitage (RSCA) trend test, and a modification to the RSCA (mRSCA) introduced here to improve estimation at low background rates. These methods were also applied to a common and a rare defect from two prenatal developmental toxicology studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP).
resultsAt background defect rates of 1%, the mRSCA and parametric litter proportion methods provided gains in power over the nonparametric litter proportion method, the GLMM method, and the RSCA method. Simulations involving litter loss in high-dose groups showed loss of power for both litter proportion methods.
conclusionsThe mRSCA test developed here compares favorably with other litter-based approaches and is robust across a range of background defect rates and litter size distributions, making it a practical choice for prenatal developmental toxicology studies involving both common and rare fetal defects.
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.