NTP Research Report on the Trend Test for Binary Data with Survivability and Clustering Adjustments

National Toxicology Program

doi:10.22427/NTP-RR-19

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

NTP Research Report on the Trend Test for Binary Data with Survivability and Clustering Adjustments

Research Report 19

NTP Research Report

National Toxicology Program.

Author Information and Affiliations

Research Triangle Park (NC): National Toxicology Program; 2023 Nov.

View this report on the NTP website

Abstract

This report introduces a trend test for binary data that accommodates both treatment-affected survivability and clustering within treatment groups. The test is motivated by chronic rodent carcinogenicity assays that begin exposure in utero and continue exposing postweaning siblings at the same dose level as their dams. The new test modifies the Poly-3 trend test introduced by Bailer and Portier¹ to include clustering by adjusting the variance estimate of the lifetime incidence rate of findings. The weighted least squares linear regression approach to the Cochran-Armitage test with weights equal to the inverse of the variance is used to determine the initial statistic. Since sparse findings are common in low-dose groups and may be present in higher dose groups, the variance estimate is pooled across dose groups following Bieler and Williams² to increase robustness. The new method was first evaluated with simulated data using distributional models for tumor onset and mortality¹ with sibling correlation added through copulas. The simulations show that in the absence of positive sibling correlation, the false positive rate and power are similar for the Poly-3 test and the Poly-3 test modified for sibling correlation. However, with positive sibling correlation, the false positive rate is lower using the modified Poly-3 test than with the Poly-3 test. The two methods are also compared using real data from a National Toxicology Program perinatal chronic study, and the results reinforce the conclusion that failing to account for sibling correlation sometimes leads to inflated statistical significance.

Keywords: Littermates, siblings, rat, chronic toxicology testing, developmental carcinogenicity, statistical analysis of tumor counts, Poly-3 test, cluster analysis, Rao-Scott

Foreword

The National Toxicology Program (NTP), established in 1978, is an interagency program within the Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Its activities are executed through a partnership of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the Food and Drug Administration (primarily at the National Center for Toxicological Research), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (part of the National Institutes of Health), where the program is administratively located. NTP offers a unique venue for the testing, research, and analysis of agents of concern to identify toxic and biological effects, provide information that strengthens the science base, and inform decisions by health regulatory and research agencies to safeguard public health. NTP also works to develop and apply new and improved methods and approaches that advance toxicology and better assess health effects from environmental exposures.

NTP reports the findings from many of its studies in the NTP Technical Report and Monograph series. NTP uses the Research Report series, which began in 2016, to report on work that does not fit readily into one of those two series, such as pilot studies, assay development or optimization studies, literature surveys or scoping reviews, and handbooks on NTP procedures or study specifications.

NTP Research Reports are available free of charge on the NTP website and cataloged in PubMed, a free resource developed and maintained by the National Library of Medicine (part of the National Institutes of Health). Data for these evaluations are included in NTP’s Chemical Effects in Biological Systems database or the Health Assessment and Workspace Collaborative.

For questions about the reports and studies, please email NTP or call 984-287-3211.

Collaborators

Social & Scientific Systems, a DLH Company, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Contributed to development of the clusterPoly-3 method and drafted report
S.J. McBride, Ph.D., Principal Investigator
S.F. Harris, M.S.
M.V. Smith, Ph.D.
Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Contributed to development of the clusterPoly-3 method, drafted report, and provided contract oversight
K.R. Shockley, Ph.D.
Office of Program Operations, Division of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Provided contract oversight and drafted report
H.C. Cunny, Ph.D.

Contributors

Division of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Provided oversight of external peer review
M.L. Brownlow, Ph.D.
M.S. Wolfe, Ph.D.
Provided oversight of reporting activities
G.K. Roberts, Ph.D.
K.A. Shipkowski, Ph.D.
Kelly Government Solutions, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Supported external peer review
E.A. Maull, Ph.D.
ICF, Reston, Virginia, USA
Provided contract oversight
D. Burch, M.E.M.
J.A. Wignall, M.S.P.H.
Edited and formatted report
T. Hamilton, M.S.
K.T. O’Donovan, B.A.
P. Shirzadi, M.P.H.
Supported external peer review
L.M. Green, M.P.H.
P. Shirzadi, M.P.H.

Peer Review

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted a peer review of the draft NTP Research Report on the Trend Test for Binary Data with Survivability and Clustering Adjustments by letter in January and February 2023 by the experts listed below. Reviewer selection and document review followed established NTP practices. The reviewers were charged to:

Review the draft NTP Research Report on the Trend Test for Binary Data with Survivability and Clustering Adjustments.
Comment on whether the draft document is clearly stated and objectively presented.

NTP carefully considered reviewer comments in finalizing this report.

Peer Reviewers

A. John Bailer, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Statistics
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio, USA
David B. Dunson, Ph.D.
Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of Statistical Science
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, USA
Chris Gennings, Ph.D.
Research Professor of Biostatistics
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
New York, New York, USA

Publication Details

Publisher: National Toxicology Program

Publishing Location: Research Triangle Park, NC

ISSN: 2473-4756

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-RR-19

Report Series: NTP Research Report Series

Report Series Number: 19

Official citation: National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2023. NTP research report on the trend test for binary data with survivability and clustering adjustments. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program. Research Report 19.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health and performed for the National Toxicology Program, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contracts HHSN271201800012I, HHSN273201600011C, GS00F173CA-75N96021F00109, and GS00Q14OADU417 (Order No. HHSN273201600015U).

Introduction

The long-term or chronic rodent carcinogenicity study focuses on binary responses indicating the presence of findings such as tumors or nonneoplastic lesions after approximately 2 years of exposure. Without the presence of siblings (littermates), trend analysis is conducted using the Poly-3 scoring method,¹^,² which was developed to account for possible treatment toxicity that may affect survivability over the course of the study.

A more recent extension of this rodent protocol used by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) includes early dosing of pups through the dam both in utero and during lactation before continuing with direct exposure after weaning. With multiple pups per litter available in developmental studies with an in utero component, siblings are available to be included in long-term rodent studies.³

Protocols for these “developmental carcinogenicity” or “perinatal chronic” studies have called for two or three siblings/sex/dose group. Note that the data are always analyzed separately by sex. In general, clusters are formed when members of the same cluster are more similar than members of different clusters. For the application discussed in this report, clusters are formed by littermates, since sibling responses may be more similar than those of nonsiblings due to shared genetics, maternal care, or other factors.⁴ The Poly-3 trend test was not designed to take into account clustered observations, and so may lead to Type I error inflation and unreliable analysis results.

The specific goal was to extend the Poly-3 test to clustered data with clusters nested within dose groups. With this focus, NIEHS staff looked for an approach that allows accounting for clustering most easily in the above context. As discussed in detail in the Methods section, the Poly-3 test consists of a scoring method that adjusts sample sizes for early mortality; the adjusted sample sizes are generally noninteger. Approaches that use distribution models for clustering that are based on the binomial distribution,⁵^,⁶ as well as exact solutions,⁷ are therefore problematic.

In addition, there was concern regarding convergence issues for generalized mixed models (GLMMs). Without survival issues, the statistic introduced in this report reduces to the statistic described and used in Harris et al.⁸ and denoted as the Rao-Scott Cochran-Armitage method (mRSCA). Simulations are used to compare the mRSCA statistic to a variety of other approaches, including GLMMs (logistic regression). While Type I error rates and power were very similar for these two approaches, the logistic regression had convergence issues in up to 26% of simulations for background incidence rates of around 20%.

Examples of studies using the “developmental carcinogenicity” protocol include those for SAN-Trimer (TR-573),⁹ DE-71 (TR-589),¹⁰ and 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (2H4MBP; TR-597).¹¹ Incidence data on 25 nonneoplastic lesions (13 male and 12 female) from the 2H4MBP study¹¹ are analyzed in this report. After weaning, pups continue to be exposed at the same concentration as their dam for 2 more years. The presence of various specific tumors and nonneoplastic lesions is recorded at death or at study termination. In the 2H4MBP study, each dose group includes two pups per sex from each of 25 litters per dose group, if available; animals without siblings are used if there are not enough sibling pairs.

In the Methods section, the clusterPoly-3 trend test is presented. The Type I error control and power of clusterPoly-3 are illustrated and compared with Poly-3 results using simulated data that are based on distributions for tumor onset and mortality found by Portier et al.¹² and used by previous authors (Bailer et al.¹ and Bieler et al.²). The added clustering is modeled by using copulas as described in detail in Appendix B. Finally, the method is applied to real data from a 2020 NTP chronic perinatal rat study.¹¹ The report closes with a discussion.

Methods

Summary of the Poly-3 Method

The Poly-3 is a trend statistic for binary data that accounts for early mortality without the presence of findings such as tumors. It is motivated by long-term exposure rodent bioassays, in which over the duration of the experiment each animal may develop a finding of interest (e.g., tumor, nonneoplastic lesion) in the presence of treatment-induced mortality.¹ If there are i = 1, …, I dose groups, $n_{i}$ denotes the initial size of the i^th dose group, and $y_{i}$ the final number of animals with the finding. The question for the analysis is whether the proportion of animals for each dose group with such findings ${\hat{p}}_{i}$ increases with dose. The linear model, $E ({\hat{p}}_{i}) = β_{0} + β_{1} d_{i}$ , can be used, where $d_{i}$ refers to the i^th dose. Following Bieler and Williams,² the generalized Wald statistic for the test H₀: β₁ = 0 versus H_A: β₁ > 0 can be written as

Z_{β_{1}} = \frac{\sum_{i} w_{i} ({\hat{p}}_{i} - {\bar{p}}_{w}) (d_{i} - {\bar{d}}_{w})}{\sqrt{\sum_{i} w_{i} {(d_{i} - {\bar{d}}_{w})}^{2}}}

[1]

where $w_{i} = \frac{1}{v a r ({\hat{p}}_{i})}$ and ${\bar{d}}_{w} = \frac{\sum_{i} w_{i} d_{i}}{\sum_{i} w_{i}}$ and ${\bar{p}}_{w} = \frac{\sum_{i} w_{i} {\hat{p}}_{i}}{\sum_{i} w_{i}}$ .

Then, for large samples under the null hypothesis, $Z_{β_{1}}$ is approximately distributed as a standard Gaussian distribution.

Without mortality or clustering, $y_{i}$ is binomially distributed and, under the null hypothesis, $v a r ({\hat{p}}_{i})$ may be written as $p (1 - p) / n_{i}$ , where $p = \frac{\sum_{i} y_{i}}{\sum_{i} n_{i}}$ is the findings rate. Note that although p itself is pooled, the variance estimates may still differ by dose group due to $n_{i}$ in the denominator. When the inverses of these variances are used as weights, the statistic in equation [1] becomes the standard Cochran-Armitage test.

If an animal dies early before developing the finding, less information is available and a mortality adjustment must be made. The Poly-3 method¹ takes such early deaths into account by giving each animal in the sample a score $α$ . For animals that survive to study termination or die early with the finding, the score is one, i.e., $α = 1$ . If T is the duration of the exposure in the assay, and the animal dies at t < T without the finding, $α = {(\frac{t}{T})}^{3} < 1$ with the lower score reflecting the uncertainty of whether the animal might have developed the finding if it had lived longer. The effective sample size is found by summing the alpha scores for the animals in the sample.

Bieler and Williams² noted that if early mortality without findings is possible, then the sum of the $α$ scores is a random variable, so that the binomial distribution for the number of animals with findings no longer applies. If the sum of the alpha scores over each dose group is denoted as $n_{i}^{'}$ to distinguish it from the initial dose group size $n_{i}$ , these authors derived an improved variance estimate for ${\hat{p}}_{i}^{'} = \frac{\sum_{i} y_{i}}{\sum_{i} n_{i}^{'}}$ using the Taylor expansion. Their improved Poly-3 trend statistic uses the inverses of pooled approximations to their variance estimates as the weights in equation [1].

With Clustering Added

In this report, variance estimates were found for the findings rates in each dose group, accounting for clustering as well as treatment lethality. The inverses of these variance estimates were used as weights in a weighted least squares approach.²

Cochran¹³ derived a variance estimate for ratios of random variables defined on clusters. The following additional notation is needed. Let i = 1, …, I denote dose group, each with $m_{i}$ litters. The j^th litter in the i^th dose group starts the experiment with $n_{i j}$ animals, for j = 1, …, $m_{i}$ . $y_{i j}$ was used to denote the number of animals in the j^th litter of the i^th dose group with the findings, and $n_{i j}^{'}$ was used to denote the corresponding sum of alpha values.

Cochran’s formula (Section 2.11, Cochran¹³) for the variance is applied to the ratio $\frac{y_{i j}}{n_{i j}^{'}}$ and shown in equation [2] for the i^th dose group.

{v a r}_{C i'} ({\hat{p}}_{i}^{'}) = \frac{m_{i}}{{(n_{i}^{'})}^{2}} \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} {(y_{i j} - {\hat{p}}_{i}^{'} n_{i j}^{'})}^{2}}{(m_{i} - 1)}

[2]

where, as before, ${\hat{p}}_{i}^{'} = \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} y_{i j}}{\sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} n_{i j}^{'}}$ .

Note that in the special case that there is no mortality (all $α$ scores are ‘one’), $n_{i j}^{'} = n_{i j}$ and

${\hat{p}}_{i}^{'} = {\hat{p}}_{i} = \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} y_{i j}}{\sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} n_{i j}}$ , so that the variance estimate in [2] reduces to variance estimate used by Rao and Scott¹⁴ as the numerator of their design effect. Similarly, in the special case without clustering and with only one pup in each litter, $m_{i}$ = $n_{i}$ , $y_{i j}$ reduces to a 0/1 variable indicating the presence of a finding, and $n_{i j}^{'}$ reduces to $α_{i j}$ , the score for the only animal in the j^th litter. With those interpretations, the variance estimate in [2] reduces to variance estimate in equation (6) in Bieler and Williams.²

In the case of sparse data, the ${\hat{p}}_{i}^{'}$ values may be zero for some dose groups, so that the variance estimate in [2] is not always stable. To increase stability, the findings rate is pooled across dose groups. Following a similar argument in Bieler and Williams,² equation [2] is first rewritten as equation [3].

{v a r}_{C i'} ({\hat{p}}_{i}^{'}) = \frac{m_{i}}{{(n_{i}^{'})}^{2}} * \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} {(y_{i j} - {\hat{p}}_{i}^{'} n_{i j}^{'} - [{\bar{y}}_{i} - {\hat{p}}_{i}^{'} {\bar{n}}_{i}^{'}])}^{2}}{m_{i} - 1}

[3]

Note that since

{\hat{p}}_{i}^{'} = \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} y_{i j}}{\sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} n_{i j}^{'}} = \frac{\frac{1}{m_{i}} \sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} y_{i j}}{\frac{1}{m_{i}} \sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} n_{i j}^{'}} = \frac{{\bar{y}}_{i}}{{\bar{n}}_{i}^{'}}

the quantity in the square brackets in equation [3] is zero. Under the null hypothesis, all dose groups have the same findings rate so that the pooled findings rate $, {\hat{p}}^{'} = \frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} y_{i j}}{\sum_{i} \sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} n_{i j}^{'}}$ , may be substituted for ${\hat{p}}_{i}^{'}$ .

With that substitution, the second factor in [3] becomes the variance for the quantity, $y_{i j} - {\hat{p}}^{'} n_{i j}^{'}$ , which, again under the null hypothesis, has a constant value. The best estimate for this constant is found by pooling across dose groups, resulting in the following estimate.

{v a r}_{i, p o o l} ({\hat{p}}^{'}) = \frac{m_{i}}{{(n_{i}^{'})}^{2}} * \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{I} \sum_{j = 1}^{m_{i}} {(y_{i j} - {\hat{p}}^{'} n_{i j}^{'} - [{\bar{y}}_{i} - {\hat{p}}^{'} {\bar{n}}_{i}^{'}])}^{2}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{I} m_{i} - I}

[4]

where I is the number of dose groups and $\sum_{i = 1}^{I} m_{i} = m$ is the total number of litters. Equation [4] is written with a pooled findings rate but adjusted to the i^th dose group; the estimates will vary between dose groups according to values for $m_{i}$ and $n_{i}^{'}$ .

To write the final statistic, $w_{i}$ is defined as ${1 / v a r}_{i, p o o l} ({\hat{p}}^{'})$ and used with equation [1]. For large numbers of litters, the resulting statistic can be used with the standard normal distribution. The corresponding test will be denoted by clusterPoly-3.

Simulations

Portier et al.¹² used historical control data from NTP studies for Fischer 344 rats and B6C3F1 (C57BL/6 × C3H F1) mice to fit Weibull distributions to background tumor onset times for a large variety of specific tumor types. Although the B6C3F1 mice are still used in NTP studies, Harlan Sprague Dawley rats are used instead of Fischer 344 rats. However, continuing to use these parameter estimates¹² allows a direct comparison to the simulation results in Bailer and Portier¹ as well as Bieler and Williams.² Modified Weibull distributions were estimated for background mortality times for both species and sexes, with cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) given in [5] and [6].

F_{t u m o r o n s e t} (t) = 1 - e^{- μ_{1} (1 + μ_{0} d_{i}) t^{μ_{2}}}

[5]

F_{t i m e o f d e a t h} (t) = 1 - e^{- (1 + θ_{0} d_{i}) (θ_{1} t + θ_{2} t^{θ_{3}})}

[6]

In both equations $d_{i}$ refers to the four dose levels (0, 0.25, 0.50, and 1.0); the parameters (μ₁, μ₂, θ₁, θ₂, θ₃) all have estimates in Portier et al.¹² The null case with only background rates for mortality as well as tumor onset corresponds to zero values for the parameters $μ_{0}$ and $θ_{0}$ .¹ To investigate power, Bailer and Portier¹ set $μ_{0}$ to 1, modeling a treatment effect that increases tumor onset linearly with dose and approximately doubles the background rate for the highest dose level. Parameter values of {1, 4} were used for $θ_{0}$ to increase levels of treatment-related lethality. Details regarding the setup of simulations are given in Appendix B.

For their simulations, Bailer and Portier¹ chose the parameter sets corresponding to three specific tumor types with background rates from 1.2% to 19.1% (see Table 1). Bieler and Williams² chose the same parameter estimates to simulate data illustrating their statistic, only adding a stronger level of treatment-related mortality ${(θ}_{0} = 7)$ . These same distributions and parameter estimates are again used in this report but with copulas used to add two levels of correlation (Spearman values of 0.24 and 0.48) between tumor onset times for siblings (e.g., Nelson,¹⁵ Genest and Mackay¹⁶). Additionally, simulations were generated with the parameter estimates corresponding to a fourth tumor type, female rat pancreatic islet tumors with a similar background tumor rate to female rat lung tumors, but with a very different distribution for onset times (Table 1; Figure 1). Note that all but the liver tumor survival parameters were taken from female rat exposures; the male survival rate is slightly lower than the female survival rate over the duration of the exposure.

Table 1

Parameter Values for Tumor Onset and Mortality Models (Equations [5] and [6] in the Text) by Tumor Type.

Figure 1

Background Tumor Onset Densities Corresponding to the Tumor Types Used in the Simulations

For each scenario, an excess of data sets was simulated using the above procedure to ensure having 5,000 data sets with at least one finding among all dose groups. All data sets followed the protocol for a single sex used in NTP Technical Report 597 (2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone)¹¹ with four dose groups of 50 animals (25 litters of 2 pups) each. The data sets were tested for significant trend at the 0.05 testing level according to two testing strategies: the Poly-3 method that uses the survival adjustment with the corrected variance² but has no provision for litters and the modified method (clusterPoly-3) that accounts for clustering. With 5,000 data sets, 95% confidence intervals for the observed percentage of null hypothesis rejections are [4.4%, 5.6%]. In future applications of either method, multiple comparison methods may be used depending on the number of tests required by the protocol.

Although the analysis method presented above does not include an explicit effective sample size estimate as part of the derivation, equation [7] below (e.g., Killip¹⁷ and Golub⁴) was used to estimate final effective dose group sizes for the high-dose groups. The effective dose group sizes accounting for both mortality and clustering were compared with the effective dose group sizes adjusted for mortality only.

n_{e f f} = \frac{n^{'}}{1 + c (s - 1)}

[7]

Here $n^{'}$ denotes the Poly-3 adjusted sample size ignoring clustering, c is the within cluster correlation, and s is the average cluster (or litter) size after the Poly-3 adjustment. The n_eff then estimates the effective dose group size when both mortality and clustering are accounted for.

Additionally, the above simulation method was used to generate further data sets with the highest sibling correlation (0.48) and the highest lethality level (4) used in the original Bailer and Portier¹ paper. These additional simulations correspond to dose groups of 30 litters with three siblings and dose groups of 10 litters with five siblings. Type I error rates and power were calculated using both Poly-3 and clusterPoly-3 methods.

Application to Real Data

Both methods described above were also applied to incidence data taken from a recent perinatal chronic study run for the National Toxicology Program.¹¹ Both the Poly-3 and clusterPoly-3 trend tests were performed for 25 nonneoplastic lesions (13 male and 12 female). For each endpoint, sibling correlation was estimated using the Fleiss-Cuzick formula.¹⁸

Results

Simulated Data

As described in the Methods section, data were simulated using tumor onset patterns corresponding to four different tumor types having high, medium, and low tumor rates. Two tumor onset patterns were included for low tumor rates: very early onset times (female rat lung tumors) and later onset times (female rat pancreatic islet tumors) (Figure 1). Four levels of treatment lethality corresponding to the four levels of the theta0 parameter in equation [6] were considered, ranging from zero (which only includes background mortality) to high levels of treatment-induced lethality as observed in various studies (Bieler and Williams²). Additionally, two positive levels of sibling correlation were considered, low (24%) and high (48%), as well as zero correlation between siblings.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 plot the percentages of significant outcomes (at the 0.05 level) for both trend tests, Poly-3 (shown as “x”), and clusterPoly-3 (shown as “•”). The numeric values of the percentages of significant outcomes shown in the figures are given in Table A-1, Table A-2, Table A-3, and Table A-4 in Appendix A. Both figures are organized in four panels corresponding to the level of treatment lethality. Each panel includes all three sibling correlation levels for all four tumor types. The tumor types are arranged from left to right in decreasing order of background rate. Thus, for each correlation value, the results are shown for: leukemia/lymphoma, liver, lung, and pancreatic islet tumors.

Figure 2

Type I Error Results

Figure 3

Power Results

Figure 2 compares Type I error inflation for the two methods (Poly-3 and clusterPoly-3). The 95% confidence bounds for the nominal Type I error rate of α = 0.05 are included for reference. The two methods give similar results when correlations are zero as correlations increase the markers corresponding to the two methods move farther apart. The Poly-3 results show consistent Type I error inflation (above the 5.6% mark) for the highest incidence tumor (leukemia/lymphoma with 19.1% background rate), while the lowest incidence tumor (pancreatic islet tumors with 1% background rate) shows no Type I error inflation. The liver tumors (4.6% background rate) show Type I error inflation for low lethality rates (0 and 1) but not the higher rates (4 and 7). The lung tumors (1.2% with early onset of tumors) show consistent but low inflation for the highest correlation level only. The clusterPoly-3 method has only one instance of inflated Type I error for the liver tumor at zero treatment-related lethality and correlation value of 0.24.

Figure 3 compares power for the two methods when the rate of tumor onset increases linearly with dose and is roughly doubled for the highest dose group [Equation 5]. As in Figure 2, when sibling correlation is zero, the two methods give consistent results. In all cases, the largest power drops for both methods occur between high and low background tumor rates. ClusterPoly-3 shows a lower rate of significance as sibling correlations increase. Power also goes down somewhat with decreasing survival due to treatment, especially for the pancreatic islet tumors.

In Table A-5, simulation results that are presented in the text for sibling correlation of 0.48 and lethality level 4 are compared with two additional protocols differing only in litter and dose group size. Additional results for dose groups of 30 litters with three pups and dose groups of 10 litters with five pups show that Type I error rates for the Poly-3 adjustment go up roughly with the number of siblings used per litter, with a high of 12.86% for five-pup litters, and that these errors are corrected by the clusterPoly-3 adjustment. The protocol with dose groups of 30 litters of three-sibling litters has the highest power.

Table A-6 compares the effective sample sizes calculated using only the Poly-3 adjustment with those also accounting for clustering for dose groups of 25 litters of two siblings or 50 animals. The effective sample sizes using only the Poly-3 adjustment decrease consistently with increasing levels of treatment-induced lethality with the strongest effect for liver tumors in male rats. Comparing effective sample sizes for the high tumor rate (19.1% for leukemia/lymphoma in female rats) with the low tumor rate (1.0% for pancreatic islets also in female rats), the sample sizes of the sparser tumors are reduced more strongly by increasing the lethality rates, while further reduction in effective sample sizes due to clustering is stronger for the higher tumor rate.

Real Data

Both Poly-3 and clusterPoly-3 methods were applied to observed data for a total of 25 nonneoplastic lesion types (both male and female) from an NTP perinatal chronic study (Table 2).¹¹

Table 2

Trend Analysis on Nonneoplastic Lesion Incidence from NTP Study on 2-Hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone Using Poly-3 and clusterPoly-3 Tests.

Although the same animals were used for all endpoints within each sex, the different endpoints differ in the number of missing measurements and estimated correlation. The “singleton litters” column shows the total number of singleton litters across all four doses due to missing measurements on siblings. The Fleiss-Cuzick¹⁸ estimates of sibling correlation vary from negative values to a high of 0.49 for lung hemorrhage in females. The last three columns contain the estimated Poly-3 p values, clusterPoly-3 p values, and Rao-Scott Poly-3 p values with the standard NTP continuity correction factor for comparison. In Figure 4, for each endpoint with a positive correlation estimate, the Poly-3 p value is subtracted from the clusterPoly-3 p value and the difference normed by the clusterPoly-3 p value. The percent change values are plotted against the sibling correlation estimates and are seen to increase as the estimated correlation increases, illustrating the effect of correlation on inflated significance. Comparing the Poly-3 and clusterPoly-3 p values in Table 2, the largest increase (p = 0.014 to p = 0.042) is for the female lung hemorrhage, which also has the highest estimated correlation (0.489). However, it is also noteworthy that p values of the two methods are comparable for all lesion types with respect to 0.05 and 0.01 thresholds.

Figure 4

Impact of Litter Correlation on Differences in Poly-3 Test Results

Discussion

Interest in the potential long-term effect of test articles administered during early development led to the design of National Toxicology Program (NTP) perinatal chronic studies that begin exposure of pups through the dams during gestation and lactation.¹⁹ The protocol allows 25 or 30 dams per dose group such that the resulting litters will contribute two or three siblings per sex to populate the chronic study, necessarily in the same dose group. The analysis of the binary response data coming from these studies includes the challenges of the earlier chronic studies (sparse findings in control groups and treatment-induced mortality) with the additional clustering of littermates. Sibling correlations estimated from the NTP incidence data on 25 different nonneoplastic lesions¹¹ ranged from negligible to 0.49 (Table 2). In this report, a novel trend statistic (the clusterPoly-3) is presented as a method for analyzing trend in findings across dose groups in the presence of treatment lethality, sparse data, and clustering nested within dose groups. The clusterPoly-3 statistic was compared to the related Poly-3 trend statistic using both simulated tumor data and observed data on nonneoplastic lesions from a recent NTP chronic perinatal rat study.¹¹ The simulated data follow the chronic perinatal protocol, with 50 animals (25 litters contributing two same-sex siblings/litter) per dose group at the start of the experiment.

Data from earlier NTP chronic studies incorporated dosing of vendor-supplied rats and mice from 6 weeks old and were analyzed using the Poly-3 scoring method developed by Bailer and Portier.¹ In their modification of the Poly-3 test, Bieler and Williams² incorporated improved variance estimates of the findings rate as the inverse weights in a generalized Wald statistic. The approach of Bieler and Williams² was combined with a variance estimate taken from survey sampling that accounts for clusters that are wholly within treatment groups (not distributed across groups).¹³ This same variance estimate accounting for clustering (but not mortality) is used by Rao and Scott.¹⁴ The variance estimate then reduces to the Rao-Scott estimate when mortality is zero. Allowing for mortality but with only a single pup in each litter, the variance estimate reduces to the corrected variance estimate for the Poly-3 test.² Following Bieler and Williams,² a pooled approximation to the variance estimate was derived to improve robustness to sparse findings. The inverse of this variance estimate was used as a weight to modify the Cochran-Armitage trend test. This approach does not assume a specific correlation model between sibling responses. The new test is referred to as the clusterPoly-3 test. In this report, the clusterPoly-3 statistic is compared to the related Poly-3 trend statistic using both simulated tumor data and observed data on nonneoplastic lesions from a recent NTP chronic perinatal rat study.¹¹ The simulated data were based on the chronic perinatal protocol with treatment groups consisting of 50 animals (25 litters with two same-sex siblings).

Sibling correlations estimated for observed nonneoplastic lesion incidence also included very low and even negative values, showing that the presence of siblings in dose groups does not always lead to high positive correlations (Table 2). For that reason, it is important to know whether clusterPoly-3 gives results comparable to the Poly-3 method when sibling correlation is very low. Figure 2 and Figure 3 (and Table A-1 and Table A-3) show that in simulated data, the operating characteristics are very similar between the methods when the correlation used to generate the data is zero. The results are also consistent with previously published power estimates (e.g., Bailer and Portier¹ and Bieler and Williams²). This similarity suggests that the clusterPoly-3 method can be used anytime sibling clusters are present in the data, without needing to check that the correlation is significantly positive.

Simulated data sets were also generated with two positive levels of sibling correlation: 0.24 and 0.48, the highest level comparable to the highest observed correlation in Table 2. Since clustering decreases the effective sample size,⁴^,¹⁴ ignoring clustering when present results in inflated Type I error. Without being able to adjust for clustering, the Type I error rates for the Poly-3 adjustment increase with correlation values, especially when litters are likely to contain tumor-bearing animals, such as with moderate-to-high tumor rates (leukemia/lymphoma tumor rate) and/or low mortality rates (simulations with theta values of 0 or 1). Inflated error rates are reduced using the clusterPoly-3 method (Figure 2; Table A-4).

To test the effect of the number of siblings used per litter on Type I error, additional simulation results for dose groups of 10 litters with five siblings per litter were generated for sibling correlation 0.48 between siblings and treatment-induced lethality of 4. This setting corresponds to the highest simulated sibling correlation discussed in this report and the highest lethality level in the original paper.¹ As shown in Table A-5, using the larger number of five siblings does lead to higher Type I error rates. The highest error rate is for the leukemia/lymphoma tumors (12.9% for litters with five siblings compared with 7.6% for litters with two siblings).

As sibling correlation increases to 0.24 and 0.48, the power for the clusterPoly-3 method decreases with respect to the Poly-3 method in the same cases that showed Type I error inflation: with higher tumor rates and high sibling correlation (Figure 3; Table A-4). Table A-6 shows the effective dose group sizes estimated using just the Poly-3 adjustment as well as using the clusterPoly-3 adjustment accounting for the clustering. For each tumor rate and lethality level, the effective sample sizes decrease with correlation, as predicted by equation [7] in the text.

For the simulations in this report, the strongest factor in determining power is the background tumor rate. Treatment effect size was modeled for the simulations as in Bailer and Portier¹ and Bieler and Williams,² as increasing linearly with dose to a twofold increase at the highest dose. For tumors with a high background rate like the leukemia/lymphoma tumors, a substantial tumor rate of nearly 40% for the highest dose group results in good power. For very low background rates such as with as lung and pancreatic islet tumors, the twofold tumor rate is only about 2% for the high dose resulting in lower power. In NTP studies, to counter low power, the evaluation of test articles includes pairwise testing as well as trend testing for many endpoints. For some test articles, NTP studies use an increased sample size. Table A-5 includes a protocol with dose group size of 30 litters with three siblings, a protocol also used in NTP studies.²⁰ This protocol shows the highest power for all endpoints. However, these simulation results show that for any reasonable sample size, detection of a twofold increase in the tumor rate is an unrealistic goal, regardless of the distribution of animals or the statistical method used.

The results from applying both Poly-3 and clusterPoly-3 methods to real observed data on 25 nonneoplastic lesions in a recent NTP perinatal chronic study¹¹ confirm the results from the simulations. In the presence of positive correlation, the clusterPoly-3 p values tend higher than those predicted by the Poly-3 method. The normed distance between the p values for the two methods increases as estimated correlation increases (Figure 4).

As stated in the Bailer and Portier study,¹ the Poly-3 (and therefore the clusterPoly-3) test can be modified by allowing the exponent of the score function ( $α = {(\frac{t}{T})}^{3}$ ) to take on values other than 3. Results can be improved by estimating the k-parameter from the probability distribution for onset times of the findings. But, as a reasonable default, the authors recommend k = 3,¹ which is the value used throughout the report.

References

1.: Bailer AJ, Portier CJ. Effects of treatment-induced mortality and tumor-induced mortality on tests for carcinogenicity in small samples. Biometrics. 1988; 44(2):417–431. 10.2307/2531856 [PubMed: 3390507] [CrossRef]
2.: Bieler GS, Williams RL. Ratio estimates, the delta method, and quantal response tests for increased carcinogenicity. Biometrics. 1993; 49(3):793–801. 10.2307/2532200 [PubMed: 8241374] [CrossRef]
3.: Blystone CR, Kissling GE, Bishop JB, Chapin RE, Wolfe GW, Foster PMD. Determination of the di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate NOAEL for reproductive development in the rat: Importance of the retention of extra animals to adulthood. Toxicol Sci. 2010; 116(2):640–646. 10.1093/toxsci/kfq147 [PMC free article: PMC2905405] [PubMed: 20484383] [CrossRef]
4.: Golub MS, Sobin CA. Statistical modeling with litter as a random effect in mixed models to manage “intralitter likeness”. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2020;77:106841. 10.1016/j.ntt.2019.106841 [PubMed: 31863841] [CrossRef]
5.: Williams DA. The analysis of binary responses from toxicological experiments involving reproduction and teratogenicity. Biometrics. 1975; 31(4):949–952. 10.2307/2529820 [PubMed: 1203435] [CrossRef]
6.: Kupper LL, Haseman JK. The use of a correlated binomial model for the analysis of certain toxicological experiments. Biometrics. 1978; 34(1):69–76. 10.2307/2529589 [PubMed: 564719] [CrossRef]
7.: Corcoran C, Ryan L, Senchaudhuri P, Mehta C, Patel N, Molenberghs G. An exact trend test for correlated binary data. Biometrics. 2001; 57(3):941–948. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2001.00941.x [PubMed: 11550948] [CrossRef]
8.: Harris SF, McBride SJ, Smith MV, Cunny HC, Shockley KR. Analysis of incidence data in developmental toxicity studies: Statistical tests to account for litter effects in fetal defect data. Birth Defects Res. 2023; 115(3):327–337. 10.1002/bdr2.2120 [PMC free article: PMC9898081] [PubMed: 36345811] [CrossRef]
9.: National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis study of styrene-acrylonitrile trimer in F344/N rats (perinatal and postnatal feed studies). Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program; 2012. NTP Technical Report No. 573. NIH Publication No. 12-5915. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/tr573abs [PubMed: 22837102]
10.: National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP technical report on the toxicology studies of a pentabromodiphenyl ether mixture [DE-71 (technical grade)] (CASRN 32534-81-9) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1/N mice and toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of a pentabromodiphenyl ether mixture [DE-71 (technical grade)] in Wistar Han [Crl:WI(Han)] rats and B6C3F1/N mice (gavage studies). Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program; 2016. NTP Technical Report No. 589. 10.22427/NTP-TR-589 [PMC free article: PMC8039869] [PubMed: 33557475] [CrossRef]
11.: National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (CASRN 131-57-7) administered in feed to Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) rats and B6C3F1/N mice. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program; 2020. NTP Technical Report No. 597. 10.22427/NTP-TR-597 [PMC free article: PMC8039891] [PubMed: 33555273] [CrossRef]
12.: Portier CJ, Hedges JC, Hoel DG. Age-specific models of mortality and tumor onset for historical control animals in the National Toxicology Program’s carcinogenicity experiments. Cancer Res. 1986; 46(9):4372–4378. [PubMed: 3731095]
13.: Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1977.
14.: Rao JNK, Scott AJ. A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics. 1992; 48(2):577–585. 10.2307/2532311 [PubMed: 1637980] [CrossRef]
15.: Nelson RB. An introduction to copulas. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2006.
16.: Genest C, MacKay J. The joy of copulas: Bivariate distributions with uniform marginals. Am Stat. 1986; 40(4):280–283.
17.: Killip S, Mahfoud Z, Pearce K. What is an intracluster correlation coefficient? Crucial concepts for primary care researchers. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 2(3):204–208. 10.1370/afm.141 [PMC free article: PMC1466680] [PubMed: 15209195] [CrossRef]
18.: Ridout MS, Demétrio CGB, Firth D. Estimating intraclass correlation for binary data. Biometrics. 1999; 55(1):137–148. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00137.x [PubMed: 11318148] [CrossRef]
19.: King-Herbert AP, Sills RC, Bucher JR. Commentary: Update on animal models for NTP studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2010; 38(1):180–181. 10.1177/0192623309356450 [PubMed: 20019353] [CrossRef]
20.: National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 Mhz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program; 2018. NTP Technical Report No. 595. 10.22427/NTP-TR-595 [PMC free article: PMC8039879] [PubMed: 33562898] [CrossRef]
21.: Kendall MG, Gibbons JD. Rank correlation methods. 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1990.

Appendix A. Supplementary Tables

Table A-1, Table A-2, Table A-3, and Table A-4 provide the numeric results shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 in the main report text. Table A-1 and Table A-2 provide numeric values for Figure 2, illustrating Type I error rates. Table A-3 and Table A-4 provide numeric values for Figure 3, illustrating power.

Table A-1Type I Error Rates for Trend Test in Tumor Incidence with Zero Sibling Correlation

Sex, Species, Tumor Rate Tumor Type	Treatment Lethality ( $θ_{0}$ Values)	P Value
Sex, Species, Tumor Rate Tumor Type	Treatment Lethality ( $θ_{0}$ Values)	Poly-3	clusterPoly-3
Female rat, ~19.1% Leukemia/lymphoma	0	0.056	0.056
	1	0.054	0.055
	4	0.043	0.044
	7	0.051	0.052
Male rats, ~4.6% Liver	0	0.056	0.056
	1	0.050	0.049
	4	0.041	0.043
	7	0.036	0.038
Female rats, ~1.2% Lung	0	0.050	0.049
	1	0.048	0.047
	4	0.043	0.043
	7	0.046	0.049
Female rats, ~1.0% Pancreatic islets	0	0.046	0.045
	1	0.035	0.035
	4	0.019	0.019
	7	0.016	0.016

: Percentage of 5,000 simulated data sets with significant trend is shown for both methods discussed in text.

Table A-2Type I Error Rates for Trend Test in Tumor Incidence with Positive Sibling Correlation

Sex, Species, Tumor Rate Tumor Type	Treatment Lethality ( $θ_{0}$ Values)	Simulated Sibling Correlation	P Value
Sex, Species, Tumor Rate Tumor Type	Treatment Lethality ( $θ_{0}$ Values)	Simulated Sibling Correlation	Poly-3	clusterPoly-3
Female rats, ~19% Leukemia/lymphoma	0	0.24	0.062	0.050
	0	0.48	0.078	0.055
	1	0.24	0.062	0.052
	1	0.48	0.070	0.048
	4	0.24	0.059	0.049
	4	0.48	0.076	0.051
	7	0.24	0.059	0.049
	7	0.48	0.071	0.049
Male rats, ~4.6% Liver	0	0.24	0.063	0.059
	0	0.48	0.069	0.054
	1	0.24	0.059	0.055
	1	0.48	0.063	0.051
	4	0.24	0.043	0.039
	4	0.48	0.051	0.040
	7	0.24	0.034	0.031
	7	0.48	0.041	0.033
Female rats, ~1.2% Lung	0	0.24	0.053	0.050
	0	0.48	0.057	0.043
	1	0.24	0.052	0.048
	1	0.48	0.058	0.046
	4	0.24	0.047	0.043
	4	0.48	0.062	0.049
	7	0.24	0.050	0.047
	7	0.48	0.058	0.046
Female rats, ~1.0% Pancreatic islets	0	0.24	0.045	0.042
	0	0.48	0.051	0.040
	1	0.24	0.042	0.038
	1	0.48	0.048	0.039
	4	0.24	0.028	0.025
	4	0.48	0.031	0.023
	7	0.24	0.016	0.014
	7	0.48	0.018	0.014

: Percentage of 5,000 simulated data sets with significant trend is shown for both methods discussed in text.

Table A-3Power for Trend Test in Tumor Incidence with Zero Sibling Correlation

Sex, Species, Tumor Rate Tumor Type	Treatment Lethality ( $θ_{0}$ Values)	P Value
Sex, Species, Tumor Rate Tumor Type	Treatment Lethality ( $θ_{0}$ Values)	Poly-3	clusterPoly-3
Female rats, ~19% Leukemia/lymphoma	0	0.559	0.561
	1	0.561	0.563
	4	0.523	0.523
	7	0.496	0.498
Male rats, ~5% Liver	0	0.227	0.231
	1	0.211	0.209
	4	0.148	0.149
	7	0.125	0.124
Female rats, ~1.2% Lung	0	0.133	0.133
	1	0.124	0.126
	4	0.134	0.133
	7	0.131	0.135
Female rats, ~1.0% Pancreatic islets	0	0.114	0.114
	1	0.101	0.101
	4	0.064	0.062
	7	0.042	0.041

: Percentage of 5,000 simulated data sets with significant trend is shown for both methods discussed in text. Simulated effect increases linearly with twice the background rate at high dose.

Table A-4Power for Trend Test in Tumor Incidence with Positive Sibling Correlation

Sex, Species, Tumor Rate Tumor Type	Treatment Lethality ( $θ_{0}$ Values)	Simulated Sibling Correlation	P Value
Sex, Species, Tumor Rate Tumor Type	Treatment Lethality ( $θ_{0}$ Values)	Simulated Sibling Correlation	Poly-3	clusterPoly-3
Female rats, ~19% Leukemia/lymphoma	0	0.24	0.548	0.511
	0	0.48	0.556	0.469
	1	0.24	0.552	0.516
	1	0.48	0.541	0.457
	4	0.24	0.530	0.490
	4	0.48	0.529	0.447
	7	0.24	0.503	0.465
	7	0.48	0.515	0.433
Male rats, ~5% Liver	0	0.24	0.231	0.218
	0	0.48	0.250	0.211
	1	0.24	0.217	0.199
	1	0.48	0.225	0.186
	4	0.24	0.167	0.156
	4	0.48	0.180	0.149
	7	0.24	0.142	0.134
	7	0.48	0.143	0.120
Female rats, ~1.2% Lung	0	0.24	0.135	0.127
	0	0.48	0.146	0.125
	1	0.24	0.132	0.126
	1	0.48	0.142	0.125
	4	0.24	0.139	0.128
	4	0.48	0.150	0.127
	7	0.24	0.139	0.133
	7	0.48	0.141	0.120
Female rats, ~1.0% Pancreatic islets	0	0.24	0.124	0.117
	0	0.48	0.121	0.103
	1	0.24	0.098	0.092
	1	0.48	0.105	0.088
	4	0.24	0.064	0.061
	4	0.48	0.073	0.061
	7	0.24	0.049	0.048
	7	0.48	0.056	0.047

: Percentage of 5,000 simulated data sets with significant trend are shown for both methods discussed in text. Simulated effect increases linearly with twice the background rate at high dose.

Table A-5 provides additional results of Type I error rates and power for both the Poly-3 and the clusterPoly-3 tests for two additional protocols. Results are limited to the highest sibling correlation (0.48) and induced lethality at theta = 4 (the highest setting in Bailer and Portier).¹ Relevant results from the simulations in the text are included for comparison.

Table A-6 separates the sample size adjustments for early mortality and sibling correlation for the simulations used in the text. An initial sample size of 50 animals (25 litters × 2 siblings/sex) are assumed for each dose group. The derivation of the clusterPoly-3 method does not include calculations of effective sample size, so the Poly-3 adjustment without accounting for clustering is applied first; a well-known adjustment to sample size for clustering (equation [7] in the text) is then applied to the Poly-3 adjusted sample size.

Table A-5Proportions of Significant Results Found per 5,000 Simulated Data Sets

	25 Litters of 2 Pups		30 Litters of 3 Pups		10 Litters of 5 Pups
	Poly-3	clusterPoly-3	Poly-3	clusterPoly-3	Poly-3	clusterPoly-3
Type I Error Rates
Leukemia/lymphoma (19.1%)	0.076	0.051	0.087	0.049	0.129	0.058
Liver (4.6%)	0.051	0.040	0.050	0.033	0.078	0.043
Lung (1.2%)	0.062	0.049	0.075	0.055	0.074	0.040
Pancreatic Islets (1.0%)	0.031	0.023	0.040	0.028	0.043	0.021
Power
Leukemia/lymphoma (19.1%)	0.529	0.447	0.680	0.551	0.511	0.328
Liver (4.6%)	0.180	0.149	0.240	0.178	0.216	0.129
Lung (1.2%)	0.150	0.127	0.200	0.163	0.168	0.099
Pancreatic Islets (1.0%)	0.073	0.061	0.110	0.083	0.104	0.058

: Sibling correlation was set at 0.48 with a lethality setting of theta0 = 4. Results for 25 litters of two pups shown in the text are included for comparison.

Table A-6Mortality Adjustment (Poly-3) Is Shown for the High-dose Groups (25 Litters with Two Siblings) and Average Adjusted Litter Size

Induced Lethality Level	Sibling Correlation	Leukemia/Lymphoma			Liver			Lung			Pancreatic Islet
Induced Lethality Level	Sibling Correlation	Poly-3 Adjustment Only	Poly-3 Adjusted Litter Size	Adding Sibling Correlation	Poly-3 Adjustment Only	Effective Litter Size	Adding Sibling Correlation	Poly-3 Adjustment Only	Effective Litter Size	Adding Sibling Correlation	Poly-3 Adjustment Only	Effective Litter Size	Adding Sibling Correlation
0	0	47.5	1.90	47.5	46.3	1.85	46.3	47.0	1.88	47.0	46.9	1.88	46.9
0	0.24	47.5	1.90	38.8	46.2	1.85	38.1	47.0	1.88	38.5	46.9	1.88	38.5
0	0.48	47.5	1.90	32.8	46.2	1.85	32.5	47.0	1.88	32.6	46.9	1.88	32.6
1	0	45.3	1.81	45.3	43.0	1.72	43.0	44.3	1.77	44.3	44.1	1.77	44.1
1	0.24	45.3	1.81	37.6	43.0	1.72	36.4	44.2	1.77	37.1	44.2	1.77	37.1
1	0.48	45.3	1.81	32.2	43.0	1.72	31.6	44.2	1.77	31.9	44.2	1.77	31.9
4	0	39.7	1.59	39.7	35.6	1.42	35.6	37.7	1.51	37.7	37.5	1.50	37.5
4	0.24	39.7	1.59	34.6	35.6	1.42	32.2	37.6	1.51	33.4	37.5	1.50	33.3
4	0.48	39.7	1.59	30.7	35.6	1.43	29.4	37.7	1.51	30.1	37.5	1.50	30.0
7	0	35.5	1.42	35.5	30.6	1.22	30.6	32.8	1.31	32.8	32.6	1.31	32.6
7	0.24	35.5	1.42	32.1	30.6	1.22	29.0	32.9	1.32	30.5	32.6	1.30	30.3
7	0.48	35.5	1.42	29.4	30.6	1.22	27.5	32.8	1.31	28.4	32.6	1.30	28.3

Appendix B. Approach for Simulations

The simulations used in this report were generated with the same models used by Bailer and Portier¹ and Bieler and Williams,² with the addition of sibling correlation. Notation in this Appendix is the same as that used earlier in the text, and equations [5] and [6] from the text are repeated below.

F_{t u m o r o n s e t} (t) = 1 - e^{- μ_{1} (1 + μ_{0} d_{i}) t^{μ_{2}}}

[1B]

F_{t i m e o f d e a t h} (t) = 1 - e^{- (1 + θ_{0} d_{i}) (θ_{1} t + θ_{2} t^{θ_{3}})}

[2B]

To apply the clusterPoly-3 statistic developed in the Methods sections, descriptive statistics of the data, such as initial number of siblings per litter and the number of litters per dose group, are needed. Although balanced data are not required for using the statistic, the simulated data in this report were balanced with litter numbers and sizes per dose group as described in the text. In addition, the clusterPoly-3 statistic needs the effective dose and litter sizes found by summing the Poly-3 scores over the animals in each group. The text below describes how Poly-3 scores are generated for the simulations. Since both tumors and nonneoplastic lesions are considered in the text, lesion onset time will be referenced.

Briefly, Gaussian copulas are used to generate lesion onset times according to the Weibull distributions specified in equation [1B] and death times according to the modified Weibull distributions specified in equation [2B], both shown above. Statistics staff then compare onset with death times and apply the Poly-3 score rule for each generated data set.

B.1. Generating Lesion Onset Times

Lesion onset times are generated for each animal, keeping track of both the dose group and the litter. The assumption is that lesion onset times may be correlated between siblings of the same litter, so statistics staff begin by using the function “rmvnorm” from the R package “mvtnorm” to generate random, normally distributed vectors of the same length as each dose group with a specified zero mean vector and a block matrix with correlation matrices down the diagonal for each litter. For example, if there are 25 litters with two animals (of the same sex) in each litter, then the variance matrix will have 25 2 × 2 matrices down the diagonal of the form $[\begin{matrix} 1 & c c \\ c c & 1 \end{matrix}]$ . The “cc” parameter refers to the Pearson correlation with values {0, 0.25, and 0.50} in our simulations. The goal is to transform these random numbers to random numbers distributed according to the CDF in [1B], while retaining correlation structure. However, Pearson correlations will not be conserved across nonlinear transformations, so instead, statistics staff turn to Spearman correlations, which are based on the ranks of the data. Although the transformations used are not linear, they are monotone, so the Spearman correlations will be conserved. Fortunately for normally distributed data, the corresponding Spearman correlations can be calculated using the following formula.²¹

ρ_{P e a r s o n} = 2 s i n (ρ_{S p e a r m a n} \frac{π}{6})

The corresponding Spearman correlations to the Pearson correlation values {0, 0.25, and 0.50} are {0, 0.24, 0.48}.

Two transformations are then applied. First, statistics staff apply the normal distribution function corresponding to the distribution that generated the data. That transformation (sometimes referred to as the “probability integral transform”) gives a sample of uniformly distributed data with the designated Spearman correlations between siblings. The procedure is then reversed and uses the inverse Weibull distribution corresponding the equation [1B] (“qweibull” in R version Rx64 4.1.2) to generate the onset data that are distributed according to the desired Weibull distribution and with the Spearman correlations between siblings. Note that the Portier et al.¹² reference also specifies multiplication factors for onset times that were used as directed. All animals with lesion onset times coming after study termination are considered free of findings.

B.2. Generating Death Times

The procedure for generating death times is similar, but no sibling correlations are included. Initial simulations did include sibling correlations of death times, but these correlations had no discernable effect on the outcomes. In addition, early deaths in chronic studies have random components, such as intermediate sacrifices or accidents that limit maternal effects. For generating random death times, statistics staff begin again with a random vector of N(0,1) data and apply the same normal distribution function to convert to random uniformly distributed data. To convert these numbers to death times with the desired modified Weibull distribution, the distribution function in equation [2B] is inverted.

Unfortunately, this modification of the Weibull distribution¹² could not be found in the software NIEHS uses, so the inversion was done by hand. Marking “day intervals” corresponding to the days on study on the horizontal axis, equation [2B] is used to plot corresponding intervals onto the [0, 1] range on the vertical axis. Moving through each interval on the vertical axis in turn, the “sel” command in R is used to identify all uniformly distributed random numbers falling within that vertical interval and to also find the corresponding day interval on the horizontal axis. The day interval then determines the day of death for that animal. The result is random death days distributed according to equation [2B]. Animals with death days after study termination are recorded as sacrificed at study termination.

B.3. Poly-3 Scores

Finally, the generated death times are compared to the generated days of onset of lesions for each generated animal, and the Poly-3 scores are calculated: If the lesion onset time is less than the death day and is less than the day of study termination, the animal is determined to have the lesion and is assigned a Poly-3 score of “1.” If the death day is the day of study termination, the Poly-3 score is again “1.” If the death day comes before study termination and before the day of lesion onset, the Poly-3 score is: $α = {(\frac{t}{T})}^{3} < 1$ , wherein T is the duration of the study, and “t” is the death day (Note that t is always ≤ T).

About the Series

NTP Research Report

ISSN (Electronic): 2473-4756

This is a work of the US government and distributed under the terms of the Public Domain

Bookshelf ID: NBK597438PMID: 37988482DOI: 10.22427/NTP-RR-19

PubReader
Print View
Cite this Page
National Toxicology Program. NTP Research Report on the Trend Test for Binary Data with Survivability and Clustering Adjustments: Research Report 19 [Internet]. Research Triangle Park (NC): National Toxicology Program; 2023 Nov. doi: 10.22427/NTP-RR-19
PDF version of this title (975K)

Other titles in this collection

NTP Research Reports

Related information

NLM Catalog
Related NLM Catalog Entries
PMC
PubMed Central citations
PubMed
Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Clear Turn Off Turn On

NTP Research Report on the Trend Test for Binary Data with Survivability and Clu...
NTP Research Report on the Trend Test for Binary Data with Survivability and Clustering Adjustments

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Bookshelf

NTP Research Report on the Trend Test for Binary Data with Survivability and Clustering Adjustments

Authors

Collaborators

Affiliations

Abstract

Foreword

Collaborators

Contributors

Peer Review

Peer Reviewers

Publication Details

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Methods

Summary of the Poly-3 Method

With Clustering Added

Simulations

Table 1

Figure 1

Application to Real Data

Results

Simulated Data

Figure 2

Figure 3

Real Data

Table 2

Figure 4

Discussion

References

Appendix A. Supplementary Tables

Table A-1Type I Error Rates for Trend Test in Tumor Incidence with Zero Sibling Correlation

Table A-2Type I Error Rates for Trend Test in Tumor Incidence with Positive Sibling Correlation

Table A-3Power for Trend Test in Tumor Incidence with Zero Sibling Correlation

Table A-4Power for Trend Test in Tumor Incidence with Positive Sibling Correlation

Table A-5Proportions of Significant Results Found per 5,000 Simulated Data Sets

Table A-6Mortality Adjustment (Poly-3) Is Shown for the High-dose Groups (25 Litters with Two Siblings) and Average Adjusted Litter Size

Appendix B. Approach for Simulations

B.1. Generating Lesion Onset Times

B.2. Generating Death Times

B.3. Poly-3 Scores

About the Series

Views

In this Page

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

Recent Activity