ArticleJournal of biological methods2024
Extraordinary variance in meta-analysis of venom toxicity of 160 most lethal ophidians and guidelines for estimating human lethal dose range.
Article in Journal of biological methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immunological Cross-Reactivity and Neutralizing Efficacy of Antivenom Against Five Medically Important Iranian Viper Venoms.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Perspective on Lessons Not Learned: From Coley's Toxins to Microbial Drug Delivery, Guidance for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Venom immunization: IgG/IgE titers, safety, risk, and methods of the VIPRBITEM cohort.Journal of biological methods · 2024Article
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
Background: This is the first meta-analysis to characterize intra-ophidian-species variation in whole venom. Being the largest possible meta-analysis at this time, it encompasses all known records of animal lethality studies over the past 100 years. These results were not artifacts of resistant test-animal species and showed orders of magnitude beyond the 1.6 logs (40-fold change) range of lethal dose documented in the literature between amphibians, lizards, and mice. Methods: A total of 1003 lethal dose study results for 160 of the most lethal venomous ophidian species in the world were analyzed. Results: LDLo was not different from LD50 across studies, indicating the true range of toxicity is probably larger. The belief that, for the route of inoculation, IC < IV < IP < IM < SC was well supported (R Conclusion: Scientists working with humans should use combined LDLo and LD50 meta-datasets for all data and calculate mean, median, minimum, range, and standard deviation as shown in the supplement spreadsheet, and the equations we provide. Standard deviation multiples may provide the desired safety for experimenters. For estimating the LD50 range and minimum lethal dose for species with little data, we recommend curating a meta-dataset of related snakes, and computational research to strengthen this estimation.
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.