The development of the widely-used median effective (or lethal) dose as a summary measure in quantifying toxic response to chemical stimuli is reviewed. Attention is directed at those mathematical properties noted by the originator of the median effective dose, the English physiologist John William Trevan, that make the measure a useful summary statistic for toxicological studies. Consideration is also given to the development of precursor measures to the median effective dose, such as minimal effective dose.
Aitkin, M. (1986). Statistical modelling: the likelihood approach . The Statistician35:103-113.
2.
Bliss, C.I. (1934). The method of probits. Science79:38-39.
3.
-( 1935a). The calculation of the dosage-mortality curve. Ann. Appl. Biol. 22:134-167.
4.
-( 1935b). The comparison of dosage-mortality data. Ann. Appl. Biol. 22:307-333.
5.
Bovie, W.T. and Hughes, D.M. (1918). Rate of recovery from the action of flourite rays . J. Gen. Physiol. 1:323-329.
6.
Brand, R.J., Pinnock, D.E. and Jackson, K.L. (1973). Large sample confidence bands for the logistic response curve and its inverse. Amer. Statist27:157-160.
7.
Brunden, M.N., Vidmar, T.J. and McKean, J.W. (1988). Drug Interaction and Lethality Analysis, pp. 119-128. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
8.
Cash, J.T. (1908). The relationship of action to dose especially with reference to repeated administration of indaconitine. Brit. Med. J. Vol. I for 1908, 1213-1218.
9.
Cox, D.R. (1970). Analysis of Binary Data, pp. 14-29. Chapman and Hall, London.
10.
Crone, H.D. (1988). Dose, content, risk: Can we instruct the public? Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8:1-3.
11.
Dixon, W.J. and Mood, A.M. (1948). A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 43:109-126.
12.
Ehrlich, P. (1957). Die Wertbemesgung des Diphtherieheilserums und den theoretische Grundlagen, in The Collected Papers of Paul Ehrlich (F. Himmelweit, ed.), Vol. II, pp. 86-106. Pergammon Press, London. (English translation, "The assay of the activity of diphtheria-curative serum and its theoretical basis," same volume, pp. 107-125.)
13.
Engeman, R.M., Otis, D.L. and Dusenberry, W.E. (1986). Small sample properties of some parametric bioassay estimators of LD90. Comput. Biomed. Res. 19:588-595.
14.
Finney, D.J. (1971). Probit Analysis (3rd ed.), pp. 17-19. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15.
Gaddum, J.H. (1933). Reports on biological standards. III. Methods of biological assay depending on a quantal response. Medical Research Council (London), Special Report Series, no. 183.
16.
Harnack, E. (1896). Ueber den Begriff der cumulativen Wirkung in ihrem Verhaltniss zu den Dosirungsgesetzen. Munch. Med. Wochenschr . xliii:1065-1067.
17.
Hemmingsen, A.M. (1933). The accuracy of insulin assay on white mice. Q . J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 6:39-80, 187-218.
18.
Irwin, J.O. (1937). Statistical method applied to biological assays (with discussion). J. Roy. Statist. Soc. (suppl.)4:1-60.
19.
Irwin, J.O. (1950). Estimates of the LD50: A critique. Biometrics6:413-423.
20.
Irwin, J.O. and Cheeseman, E.A. (1939). On an approximate method of determining the median effective dose and its error in the case of a quantal response. J. Hygiene39:574-580.
21.
Khan, M.K. and Khan, M.A. (1985). Selection of optimal dose. Comput. Biomed. Res. 18:193-203.
22.
Litchfield, J.T. JR. and Wilcoxon, F. (1949). A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. J. Pharmacol. Ther. 96:99-113.
23.
Portier, C.J. and Hoel, D.G. (1987). Issues concerning the estimation of the TD50. Risk Anal. 7:437-447.
24.
Reed, L.J. and Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of estimating fifty per cent end points. J. Hygiene27:493-497.
25.
Shackell, L.F. (1923). Studies in protoplasm poisoning. I. Phenols. J. Gen. Physiol. 5:783-805.
26.
Shackell, L.F., Williamson, W., Deitchman, M.M., Katzman, G.M. and Kleinman, B.S. (1924). The relation of dosage to effect. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 24:53-65.
27.
Trevan, J.W. (1927). The error of determination of toxicity. Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. B 101:483-514.
28.
Worcester, J. and Wilson, E.B. (1943). A table determining L.D.50 or the fifty per cent end point. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA)29:207-212.
29.
Zbinden, G. and Flury-Roversi, M. (1981). Significance and the LD50-test for the toxicological evaluation of chemical substances. Arch. Toxicol. 47:77-99.
