Dinse G E
Biometrics. 1985 Sep;41(3):751-70.
In the analysis of animal carcinogenicity studies, the standard survival-adjusted test for a dose-related trend in the prevalence of nonlethal tumors is the Hoel-Walburg test, which stratifies on age at death by grouping survival times into intervals. An alternative analysis assesses trend on the basis of the likelihood score test under a logistic model for the prevalence function, which adjusts for survival by including age at death as a continuous regression variable. Extensive simulations demonstrate that the test based on modeling the prevalence log-odds as a linear function of age is more powerful than the Hoel-Walburg test, regardless of the intervals used by the latter to stratify the data. Without incorporating a continuity correction, the size of each test often exceeds the nominal level, especially when the mortality patterns differ across dose groups. Corrected versions of the tests operate at conservative levels, where the degree of conservatism varies with the distribution of the data. When the mortality patterns for the dose groups are similar, both tests have essentially the same power to detect a trend in tumor prevalence rates. However, when mortality varies with dose, the logistic regression test with a linear age term is more powerful than the Hoel-Walburg test, and this gain in power increases as the dose-specific mortality patterns become more disparate.
在动物致癌性研究分析中,针对非致死性肿瘤患病率的剂量相关趋势进行标准生存调整检验的是霍尔 - 瓦尔堡检验,该检验通过将生存时间分组为区间,按死亡年龄进行分层。另一种分析方法是在患病率函数的逻辑模型下,基于似然比分检验评估趋势,通过将死亡年龄作为连续回归变量纳入模型来对生存情况进行调整。大量模拟表明,将患病率对数优势建模为年龄的线性函数的检验比霍尔 - 瓦尔堡检验更具效力,无论后者用于分层数据的区间如何。在不纳入连续性校正的情况下,每个检验的规模往往超过名义水平,尤其是当各剂量组的死亡率模式不同时。检验的校正版本在保守水平下运行,保守程度随数据分布而变化。当剂量组的死亡率模式相似时,两种检验检测肿瘤患病率趋势的效力基本相同。然而,当死亡率随剂量变化时,带有线性年龄项的逻辑回归检验比霍尔 - 瓦尔堡检验更具效力,并且随着剂量特异性死亡率模式差异增大,这种效力的提升也会增加。