Premium
Comparison of false‐positive rates of 2 hypothesis‐test approaches in relation to laboratory toxicity test performance
Author(s) -
Fox John F.,
Denton Debra L.,
Diamond Jerry,
Stuber Robyn
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
environmental toxicology and chemistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 171
eISSN - 1552-8618
pISSN - 0730-7268
DOI - 10.1002/etc.4347
Subject(s) - ceriodaphnia dubia , percentile , statistics , toxicity , toxicology , type i and type ii errors , statistical power , biology , mathematics , medicine , acute toxicity
We compared 2 statistical hypothesis‐test approaches (no‐observed‐effect concentration [NOEC] and test of significant toxicity [TST]) to determine the influence of laboratory test performance on the false‐positive error rate using the US Environmental Protection Agency's Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction whole‐effluent toxicity (WET) test endpoint. Simulation and power calculations were used to determine error rates based on observed control coefficients of variation ( CV ) for 8 laboratories over a range of effect levels. Average C. dubia control reproduction among laboratories was 20 to 40 offspring per female, and the 75th percentile CV was 0.10 to 0.31, reflecting a range in laboratory performance. The 2 approaches behave similarly for CV s of 0.2 to 0.3. At effects <10%, as CV decreases, TST is less likely to declare toxicity and NOEC is more likely to do so. Laboratory performance affects whether a sample is declared toxic and influences the probability of false‐positive (and −negative) error rates using either approach. At the 75th percentile control CV observed for each laboratory, 4 laboratories would achieve approximately a 5% false‐positive rate using 13 or fewer replicates for this test method. For the remaining 4 laboratories, more replicates would be needed to achieve a 5% false‐positive rate. The present analyses demonstrate how false‐positive rates are influenced by laboratory performance and WET test design. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:511–523. Published 2019 Wiley Periodicals Inc. on behalf of SETAC. This article is a US government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America.