Equivalence limit scaled differences for untargeted safety assessments

Comparative analyses to guard against unintended effects on the environment or human health of genetically modified maize

Hilko van der Voet*, Paul W. Goedhart, Esteban García-Ruiz, Concepción Escorial, Jana Tulinská

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Safety assessments guard against unintended effects for human health and the environment. When new products are compared with accepted reference products by broad arrays of measurements, statistical analyses are usually summarised by significance tests or confidence intervals per endpoint. The traditional approach is to test for statistical significance of differences. However, absence or presence of significant differences is not a statement about safety. Equivalence limits are essential for safety assessment. We propose graphs to present the results of equivalence tests over the array of endpoints. It is argued that plots of the equivalence limit scaled difference (ELSD) are preferable over plots of the standardised effect size (SES) used previously for similar assessments. The ELSD method can be used either with externally specified equivalence limits or with equivalence limits estimated from (historical) data. The method is illustrated with two examples: first, environmental safety of MON810 Bt maize was assessed using field trial count data of arthropods; second, human safety of herbicide tolerant NK603 maize was assessed using haematological, biochemical and organ weight data from a 90-day rat feeding study. All assessed endpoints were classified in EFSA equivalence categories I or II, implying full equivalence or equivalence more likely than not.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)540-548
JournalFood and Chemical Toxicology
Volume125
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

safety assessment
endpoints
Zea mays
human health
Health
Safety
corn
new products
tissue weight
arthropods
confidence interval
field experimentation
statistical analysis
herbicides
testing
Organ Size
Arthropods
Herbicides
rats
Rats

Keywords

  • Arthropods
  • Equivalence test
  • Rat feeding study
  • Risk assessment
  • Standardised effect size
  • Unintended effects

Cite this

@article{5a9f59fafc58481aa561060a57dcc5eb,
title = "Equivalence limit scaled differences for untargeted safety assessments: Comparative analyses to guard against unintended effects on the environment or human health of genetically modified maize",
abstract = "Safety assessments guard against unintended effects for human health and the environment. When new products are compared with accepted reference products by broad arrays of measurements, statistical analyses are usually summarised by significance tests or confidence intervals per endpoint. The traditional approach is to test for statistical significance of differences. However, absence or presence of significant differences is not a statement about safety. Equivalence limits are essential for safety assessment. We propose graphs to present the results of equivalence tests over the array of endpoints. It is argued that plots of the equivalence limit scaled difference (ELSD) are preferable over plots of the standardised effect size (SES) used previously for similar assessments. The ELSD method can be used either with externally specified equivalence limits or with equivalence limits estimated from (historical) data. The method is illustrated with two examples: first, environmental safety of MON810 Bt maize was assessed using field trial count data of arthropods; second, human safety of herbicide tolerant NK603 maize was assessed using haematological, biochemical and organ weight data from a 90-day rat feeding study. All assessed endpoints were classified in EFSA equivalence categories I or II, implying full equivalence or equivalence more likely than not.",
keywords = "Arthropods, Equivalence test, Rat feeding study, Risk assessment, Standardised effect size, Unintended effects",
author = "{van der Voet}, Hilko and Goedhart, {Paul W.} and Esteban Garc{\'i}a-Ruiz and Concepci{\'o}n Escorial and Jana Tulinsk{\'a}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.fct.2019.02.007",
language = "English",
volume = "125",
pages = "540--548",
journal = "Food and Chemical Toxicology",
issn = "0278-6915",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Equivalence limit scaled differences for untargeted safety assessments : Comparative analyses to guard against unintended effects on the environment or human health of genetically modified maize. / van der Voet, Hilko; Goedhart, Paul W.; García-Ruiz, Esteban; Escorial, Concepción; Tulinská, Jana.

In: Food and Chemical Toxicology, Vol. 125, 01.03.2019, p. 540-548.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Equivalence limit scaled differences for untargeted safety assessments

T2 - Comparative analyses to guard against unintended effects on the environment or human health of genetically modified maize

AU - van der Voet, Hilko

AU - Goedhart, Paul W.

AU - García-Ruiz, Esteban

AU - Escorial, Concepción

AU - Tulinská, Jana

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Safety assessments guard against unintended effects for human health and the environment. When new products are compared with accepted reference products by broad arrays of measurements, statistical analyses are usually summarised by significance tests or confidence intervals per endpoint. The traditional approach is to test for statistical significance of differences. However, absence or presence of significant differences is not a statement about safety. Equivalence limits are essential for safety assessment. We propose graphs to present the results of equivalence tests over the array of endpoints. It is argued that plots of the equivalence limit scaled difference (ELSD) are preferable over plots of the standardised effect size (SES) used previously for similar assessments. The ELSD method can be used either with externally specified equivalence limits or with equivalence limits estimated from (historical) data. The method is illustrated with two examples: first, environmental safety of MON810 Bt maize was assessed using field trial count data of arthropods; second, human safety of herbicide tolerant NK603 maize was assessed using haematological, biochemical and organ weight data from a 90-day rat feeding study. All assessed endpoints were classified in EFSA equivalence categories I or II, implying full equivalence or equivalence more likely than not.

AB - Safety assessments guard against unintended effects for human health and the environment. When new products are compared with accepted reference products by broad arrays of measurements, statistical analyses are usually summarised by significance tests or confidence intervals per endpoint. The traditional approach is to test for statistical significance of differences. However, absence or presence of significant differences is not a statement about safety. Equivalence limits are essential for safety assessment. We propose graphs to present the results of equivalence tests over the array of endpoints. It is argued that plots of the equivalence limit scaled difference (ELSD) are preferable over plots of the standardised effect size (SES) used previously for similar assessments. The ELSD method can be used either with externally specified equivalence limits or with equivalence limits estimated from (historical) data. The method is illustrated with two examples: first, environmental safety of MON810 Bt maize was assessed using field trial count data of arthropods; second, human safety of herbicide tolerant NK603 maize was assessed using haematological, biochemical and organ weight data from a 90-day rat feeding study. All assessed endpoints were classified in EFSA equivalence categories I or II, implying full equivalence or equivalence more likely than not.

KW - Arthropods

KW - Equivalence test

KW - Rat feeding study

KW - Risk assessment

KW - Standardised effect size

KW - Unintended effects

U2 - 10.1016/j.fct.2019.02.007

DO - 10.1016/j.fct.2019.02.007

M3 - Article

VL - 125

SP - 540

EP - 548

JO - Food and Chemical Toxicology

JF - Food and Chemical Toxicology

SN - 0278-6915

ER -