PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8962748

The fixed-dose procedure and the acute-toxic-class method: a mathematical comparison.

Abstract

The fixed-dose procedure (FDP), proposed by the British Toxicology Society, and the acute-toxic-class (ATC) method, proposed by the German Federal Health Authority, provide alternatives to the LD50 test for classifying substances by their acute oral toxicity. This paper presents a mathematical model that is used to compare the two procedures in terms of their classification properties and the required numbers of animals. It is found that the classification properties of the procedures depend on the dose levels used, the number of animals tested per dose and the criteria that are used to decide whether testing should continue at a higher or lower dose. For substances with steep dose-response curves, the most likely classification is determined chiefly by the choice of the dose levels whilst the number of animals and continuation criteria used are increasingly important for substances with dose-response curves with a smaller slope. The use of toxicity as a possible endpoint as in the FDP and the use of a two-stage testing procedure at each dose as in the ATC method are both found to reduce the expected numbers of animals required with little effect on the classification properties. On the strength of these findings it is indicated that a new procedure combining the dose levels and testing approach of the ATC method with the inclusion of toxicity as an endpoint as in the FDP would be more efficient than either the FDP or the ATC method.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N Stallard, A Whitehead. 1995. The fixed-dose procedure and the acute-toxic-class method: a mathematical comparison.. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032719501401206

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature for controlled studies comparing learning outcomes of traditional methods that require the terminal use of animals (eg, dissection, live-animal surgery, and live-animal laboratory demonstrations) with outcomes obtained with alternative teaching methods. DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY POPULATION: Controlled studies published between 1996 and 2004. PROCEDURES: PubMed was searched with the following keywords, used alone and in combination: educational alternatives, nonlethal teaching methods, veterinary alternatives, medical education, and nonterminal animal use. Cited references of retrieved reports were reviewed to identify additional reports. Reports were selected for review only if a comparison group was included. RESULTS: 17 studies that were randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized trials that included a comparison group were identified. Five involved veterinary students, 3 involved medical students, 6 involved university undergraduate students, and 3 involved high school biology students. Sample size ranged from 14 to 283 students. Eleven studies appeared to be randomized, parallel-group trials, 4 involved comparative groups to which participants were not randomly assigned or for which the randomization process was not clear, 1 was a 2-period crossover study, and 1 involved a retrospective review of grades. In all 17 studies reviewed, results associated with the alternative method of instruction were not significantly different from or superior to results associated with the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the number of controlled studies identified was small, the results seem to support more widespread adoption of alternative teaching methods in biomedical education.

Animal Welfare↗