Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41807795›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2026

Simple, robust and near optimal designs for the estimation of log-logistic dose response functions.

Tim Holland-Letz, Annette Kopp-Schneider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tim Holland-LetzGerman Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. t.holland-letz@dkfz.de.ORCID 0000-0003-0348-8163
Annette Kopp-SchneiderGerman Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimental designs in dose response experiments often use simple setups where the dose levels are increased by a fixed factor on the log scale. More efficient or even formally optimal experimental designs exist for this context, but these are often unpopular among applied scientists as they usually depend on the true value of some of the parameters and also frequently propose using only a small number of distinct dose levels. On the other hand, more generally optimal designs such as quasi-bayesian designs are often quite complicated, and still require specifying an a-priori distribution of parameters. In this paper we propose a single graphical representation which shows the performance of any given experimental design under a wide range of possible parameters. Using this representation, we propose four different possible designs which are both simple and still provide reasonable efficiency under many parameter constellations, without needing anything but the most coarse prior knowledge about these parameters. Specifically, our recommended design proposes 10 different dose levels in total, 8 main doses spaced equally around the most likely ED50 value, exactly one natural log step apart, and one more set of observations each under control, and under the maximum technically feasible dose. The available observations should be distributed among these dose levels so that each of the main dose levels is assigned roughly [Formula: see text] of the observations, while control and maxdose are assigned roughly [Formula: see text] of the observations, rounding when necessary.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugResearch DesignBayes TheoremDose-response studiesLog-logistic functionOptimal experimental designRobustness

Identifiers

PMID41807795
PMCPMC13221392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.