Abstract
An important paper by Zbinden and Fluri-Roversi (1981) has shown the many weaknesses in any policy or regulatory system that regards an estimated LD50 in an animal species as an adequate guide to toxicity in man. The present paper draws attention to some statistical aspects of LD50 estimation that are too often neglected or misunderstood when this quantity is wanted. It is solely concerned with practice when a LD50 must be estimated, and deliberately does not approach the broader issues of whether the LD50 should be estimated.
A first need is clear distinction between the true but unknown form of dependence of mortality on dose and the estimate of it (or of a particular property such as the LD50) that is obtainable from an experiment. Some assumptions are necessary before any estimation is possible. The graphical and semi-graphical methods that once were popular because of their simplicity and speed are today only reasonable as a last resort, when data are wholly inadequate and all that can be found is a very rough preliminary indication. Many “simple” arithmetical methods have been shown to be inherently bad, in that equally simple alternatives are usually more precise and less subject to bias. The Spearman-Kärber method remains as a useful possibility, demanding little knowledge of the form of the response curves but often needing other unverifiable assumptions. For most purposes, maximum likelihood estimation of a parametric formulation of the response curve is the best choice, not only because of theoretical merits but also because it can now be performed on a microcomputer in a very few seconds.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bliss CI (1935) The calculation of the dosage-mortaliy curve. Ann Appl Biol 22: 134–167
Chanter DO, Haywood R (1982) The LD50 test: Some considerations of precision. Toxicol Lett 10: 303–307
Cobb LM, Grimshaw P (1949) Acute toxicity of oral diquat (1,1′-ethylene-2,2′-bipyridinium) in Cynomolgus monkeys. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 51: 277–282
Deichmann WB, Le Blanc TJ (1943) Determination of the approximate lethal dose with about six animals. J Industrial Hygiene Toxicol 25: 415–417
Dixon WJ, Mood AM (1948) A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. J Am Statist Assoc 43: 109–126
Finney DJ (1947) Probit analysis. London: Cambridge University Press (3rd edition 1973)
Finney DJ (1950) The estimation of the mean of a normal tolerance distribution, Sanhkyā 10: 341–360
Finney DJ (1953) The estimation of the ED50 for the logistic response curve. Sankhyā 12: 121–136
Finney DJ (1978) Statistical method in biological assay. London: Charles Griffin & Co. Ltd. (3rd ed)
Kershaw CD (1983) Sequential estimation procedures for binary response. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh
Litchfield JT, Wilcoxon F (1949) A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. J Pharmacol Ther 96: 99–113
Molinengo L (1979) The curve doses vs survival time in the evaluation of acute toxicology. J Pharm Pharmacol 31: 343–344
Thompson WR (1947) Use of moving averages and interpolation to estimate median effective dose. Bacteriol Rev 11: 115–145
Zbinden G, Flury-Roversi M (1981) Significance of the LD50-test for the toxicological evaluation of chemical substances. Arch Toxicol 47: 77–99
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Finney, D.J. The median lethal dose and its estimation. Arch Toxicol 56, 215–218 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00295156
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00295156