Statistics and the LD50 Study

Tattersall, M. L.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-68511-8_46

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…H the dose groups were committed in a sequential way, such that the result of the initial dose was taken into account in setting the rest, then 2 animals per group would be sufficient in most cases. Tattersall [30] reached a similar conclusion.…”

Section: ~~ ____ ~ __ ----------------------------------74%supporting

confidence: 52%

Industrial Uses of Acute Toxicity Testing

Oliver¹

1986

The Contribution of Acute Toxicity Testing to the Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: ~~ ____ ~ __ ----------------------------------74%supporting

confidence: 52%

Industrial Uses of Acute Toxicity Testing

Oliver¹

1986

The Contribution of Acute Toxicity Testing to the Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…From the lively discussion going on in many scientific circles, societies and expert groups, it has become clear that much important information on the acute toxic hazards of chemicals can be obtained with small numbers of animals. It has also been shown that it is often not necesssary to use doses that cause mortality in a substantial number of the subjects (Tattersall, 1982). Other scientists have resumed the approaches of earlier workers (Deichmann and Le Blanc, 1943;Thompson, 1947;Deichmann and Mergard, 1948;Dixon and Mood, 1948;Weil, 1952;Brownlee et al 1953), and have demonstrated convincingly that it is possible to determine LDs0 values with satisfactory precision, using a total of 12 animals or less (Mueller and Kley, 1982;Schuetz and Fuchs, 1982;Lorke, 1983;Bruce, 1985).…”

Section: Current Notions and Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invited contribution: Acute toxicity testing, public responsibility and scientific challenges

Zbinden

1986

Cell Biol Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of the acute toxic effects of chemicals is important for the protection of exposed humans. Since sufficient information in humans is often lacking, experiments on laboratory animals must be performed. The LD50 test, which requires large numbers of animals, has become the preferred procedure. It is now widely criticized on scientific and ethical grounds. This paper reviews the possibilities of using fewer animals to obtain relevant information on the acute hazards of chemical substances, but it also identifies the reasons why the traditional testing approaches cannot be changed immediately. An important problem is the practice of basing legal decisions on classification of chemicals in official lists of hazardous substances and for labeling purposes on LD50 values. Proposals are presented on how pain and suffering of the animals included in acute toxicity tests can be reduced. The use of in vitro systems for the evaluation of the hazardous properties of chemicals is discussed.

show abstract

“…The scientific significance of the classical LDs0 test has been questioned on the basis of the relatively broad variability of the test results and for animal welfare reasons (Zbinden and Flury-Roversi 1981;Bass et al 1982;Tattersall 1982). For the evaluation of the acute oral toxicity of substances it is not necessary to derive this information with an LDs0 test using large numbers of animals but instead with the use of only few animals that are carefully monitored for signs of toxicity and signs of recovery or mortality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A national validation study of the acute-toxic-class method—an alternative to the LD50 test

Schlede¹,

Mischke

Roll

et al. 1992

Arch Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a national collaborative study an alternative to the classical LD50 test--the acute-toxic-class method--was validated. With this testing procedure mortality ranges are determined between defined dose levels that are used for classification and labelling in the European Community. The results were compared with LD50 data obtained from the literature which were categorized according to the defined dose levels. The results of this collaborative study have shown that the acute-toxic-class method allows allocation to the toxicity classes of very toxic, toxic, harmful and unclassified in the same manner as on the basis of the classical LD50 tests. The acute-toxic-class method uses fewer animals and subjects fewer animals to pain and distress than the LD50 test and yields the same information on toxic signs in the treated animals. Identical classifications were obtained by the six participating laboratories in 86% of the tests. This demonstrates that the acute-toxic-class method results in excellent reproducibility in comparison to the classical LD50 test and that this new method is a reliable alternative to the LD50 test.

show abstract

Statistics and the LD50 Study

Cited by 16 publications

References 2 publications

Industrial Uses of Acute Toxicity Testing

Industrial Uses of Acute Toxicity Testing

Invited contribution: Acute toxicity testing, public responsibility and scientific challenges

A national validation study of the acute-toxic-class method—an alternative to the LD50 test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About