Georganne M. Backman

Learn More
The preceding paper described our numerical index of carcinogenic potency, the TD50 and the statistical procedures adopted for estimating it from experimental data. This paper presents the Carcinogenic Potency Database, which includes results of about 3000 long-term, chronic experiments of 770 test compounds. Part II is a discussion of the sources of our(More)
This paper is the second chronological supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database, published earlier in this journal (1,2,4). We report here results of carcinogenesis bioassays published in the general literature between January 1983 and December 1984, and in Technical Reports of the National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program between January(More)
This paper is the third chronological supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database that first appeared in this journal in 1984. We report here results of carcinogenesis bioassays published in the general literature between January 1985 and December 1986, and in Technical Reports of the National Toxicology Program between June 1986 and June 1987. This(More)
This paper is a chronological supplement to our earlier publication, "A Carcinogenic Potency Database of the Standardized Results of Animal Bioassays." We report here results of carcinogenesis bioassays published in Technical Reports of the National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program between July 1980 and December 1982, and the general literature(More)
For 41 chemicals there exist both reasonable data on carcinogenic potency in experimental animals and also a defined Permissible Exposure Level (PEL), which is the upper limit of legally permissible chronic occupational exposure for U.S. workers. These 41 agents are ranked by an index that compares the permitted chronic human exposure to the chronic dose(More)
Two methods for estimating carcinogenic potency from animal carcinogenesis bioassays (TD50-defined in the paper) are compared, one based on lifetable data and one based on summary incidence data. The lifetable analysis adjusts for the differential effects of toxicity among dose groups and for differences in the time pattern of tumor incidence, while summary(More)
Wartenberg and Gallo(’) find fault with Ames et ~ l . ( ~ ) for using the rank order of rodent TD5,s to predict the rank order of carcinogen hazards to humans when exposures are at much lower levels than the doses typically used in the rodent bioassays. This is certainly a topic that merits serious investigation, but Wartenberg and Gallo do not offer any(More)
  • 1