Hormesis: a conversation with a critic.
OBJECTIVE: In this commentary I respond to points raised in the commentary by Mushak [Ad hoc and fast forward: the science and control of hormesis growth and development. Environ Health Perspect 117:1333-1338 (2009)], which principally concerns studies by me and my colleagues concerning the frequenc...
| Publicado en: | Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 117; no. 9; pp. 1339 - 1344 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | response tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Sep2009
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105434156&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 105434156 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 00916765 3B5 jtl: Environmental Health Perspectives issn: 00916765 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2009 vid: 117 iid: 9 pid: 56539 pub: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences place: Research Triangle Park, North Carolina artinfo: ui: 105434156 2010412356 10.1289/ehp.0901002 NLM19750095 105434156 ppf: 1339 ppct: 5 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Hormesis: a conversation with a critic. aug: au: Calabrese EJ affil: Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA. edwardc@schoolph.umass.edu sug: subj: Data Analysis Dose-Response Relationship Research Toxicology False Positive Results Models, Statistical ab: OBJECTIVE: In this commentary I respond to points raised in the commentary by Mushak [Ad hoc and fast forward: the science and control of hormesis growth and development. Environ Health Perspect 117:1333-1338 (2009)], which principally concerns studies by me and my colleagues concerning the frequency of hormesis in toxicology. DISCUSSION: In this commentary I demonstrate that Mushak's analysis contains critical statistical errors and misunderstandings of statistical concepts that invalidate its conclusions concerning the frequency of hormesis in the toxicologic literature. CONCLUSIONS: In his commentary Mushak offers no significant new conceptual insights, and his key technical criticisms of hormesis frequency findings are unfounded. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: response tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|