Hubbry Logo
Dose–response relationshipDose–response relationshipMain
Open search
Dose–response relationship
Community hub
Dose–response relationship
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dose–response relationship
Dose–response relationship
Dose–response relationship
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A dose response curve showing the normalised tissue response to stimulation by an agonist. Low doses are insufficient to generate a response, while high doses generate a maximal response. The steepest point of the curve corresponds with an EC50 of 0.7 molar

The dose–response relationship, or exposure–response relationship describes the magnitude of the response of a biochemical or cell-based assay or an organism, as a function of exposure (or doses) to a stimulus or stressor (usually a chemical) after a certain exposure time.[1] Dose–response relationships can be described by dose–response curves, or concentration-response curves. This is explained further in the following sections. A stimulus response function or stimulus response curve is defined more broadly as the response from any type of stimulus, not limited to chemicals.

Motivation for studying dose–response relationships

[edit]

Studying dose response, and developing dose–response models, is central to determining "safe", "hazardous" and (where relevant) beneficial levels and dosages for drugs, pollutants, foods, and other substances to which humans or other organisms are exposed. These conclusions are often the basis for public policy. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has developed extensive guidance and reports on dose–response modeling and assessment, as well as software.[2] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also has guidance to elucidate dose–response relationships[3] during drug development. Dose-response relationships may be used in individuals or in populations. The adage "the dose makes the poison" reflects how a small amount of a toxin can have no significant effect, while a large amount may be fatal. In populations, dose–response relationships can describe the way groups of people or organisms are affected at different levels of exposure. Dose-response relationships modelled by dose response curves are used extensively in pharmacology and drug development. In particular, the shape of a drug's dose–response curve (quantified by EC50, nH and ymax parameters) reflects the biological activity and strength of the drug.

Example stimuli and responses

[edit]

Some example measures for dose–response relationships are shown in the tables below. Each sensory stimulus corresponds with a particular sensory receptor, for instance the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor for nicotine, or the mechanoreceptor for mechanical pressure. However, stimuli (such as temperatures or radiation) may also affect physiological processes beyond sensation (and even give the measurable response of death). Responses can be recorded as continuous data (e.g. force of muscle contraction) or discrete data (e.g. number of deaths).

Example Stimulus Target
Drug/Toxin dose Agonist
(e.g. nicotine, isoprenaline) 		Biochemical receptors,
Enzymes,
Transporters
Antagonist
(e.g. ketamine, propranolol)
Allosteric modulator
(e.g. Benzodiazepine)
Temperature Temperature receptors
Sound levels Hair cells[4]
Illumination/Light intensity Photoreceptors[5]
Mechanical pressure Mechanoreceptors
Pathogen dose (e.g. LPS) n/a
Radiation intensity n/a
System Level Example Response
Population (Epidemiology) Death,[6] loss of consciousness
Organism/Whole animal (Physiology) Severity of lesion,[6] blood pressure,[6] heart rate, extent of movement, attentiveness, EEG data
Organ/Tissue ATP production, proliferation, muscle contraction, bile production, cell death
Cell (Cell biology, Biochemistry) ATP production, calcium signals, morphology, mitosis

Analysis and creation of dose–response curves

[edit]
Semi-log plots of the hypothetical response to agonist, log concentration on the x-axis, in combination with different antagonist concentrations. The parameters of the curves, and how the antagonist changes them, gives useful information about the agonist's pharmacological profile. This curve is similar but distinct from that, which is generated with the ligand-bound receptor concentration on the y-axis.

Construction of dose–response curves

[edit]

A dose–response curve is a coordinate graph relating the magnitude of a dose (stimulus) to the response of a biological system. A number of effects (or endpoints) can be studied. The applied dose is generally plotted on the X axis and the response is plotted on the Y axis. In some cases, it is the logarithm of the dose that is plotted on the X axis. The curve is typically sigmoidal, with the steepest portion in the middle. Biologically based models using dose are preferred over the use of log(dose) because the latter can visually imply a threshold dose when in fact there is none.[citation needed]

Statistical analysis of dose–response curves may be performed by regression methods such as the probit model or logit model, or other methods such as the Spearman–Kärber method.[7] Empirical models based on nonlinear regression are usually preferred over the use of some transformation of the data that linearizes the dose-response relationship.[8]

Typical experimental design for measuring dose-response relationships are organ bath preparations, ligand binding assays, functional assays, and clinical drug trials.

Specific to response to doses of radiation the Health Physics Society (in the United States) has published a documentary series on the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model though the society has not adopted a policy on LNT."

Hill equation

[edit]
Main article: Hill equation (biochemistry)

Logarithmic dose–response curves are generally sigmoidal-shape and monotonic and can be fit to a classical Hill equation. The Hill equation is a logistic function with respect to the logarithm of the dose and is similar to a logit model. A generalized model for multiphasic cases has also been suggested.[9]

The Hill equation is the following formula, where is the magnitude of the response, is the drug concentration (or equivalently, stimulus intensity) and is the drug concentration that produces a 50% maximal response and is the Hill coefficient.

[10]

The parameters of the dose response curve reflect measures of potency (such as EC50, IC50, ED50, etc.) and measures of efficacy (such as tissue, cell or population response).

A commonly used dose–response curve is the EC50 curve, the half maximal effective concentration, where the EC50 point is defined as the inflection point of the curve.

Dose response curves are typically fitted to the Hill equation.

The first point along the graph where a response above zero (or above the control response) is reached is usually referred to as a threshold dose. For most beneficial or recreational drugs, the desired effects are found at doses slightly greater than the threshold dose. At higher doses, undesired side effects appear and grow stronger as the dose increases. The more potent a particular substance is, the steeper this curve will be. In quantitative situations, the Y-axis often is designated by percentages, which refer to the percentage of exposed individuals registering a standard response (which may be death, as in LD50). Such a curve is referred to as a quantal dose–response curve, distinguishing it from a graded dose–response curve, where response is continuous (either measured, or by judgment).

The Hill equation can be used to describe dose–response relationships, for example ion channel-open-probability vs. ligand concentration.[11]

Dose is usually in milligrams, micrograms, or grams per kilogram of body-weight for oral exposures or milligrams per cubic meter of ambient air for inhalation exposures. Other dose units include moles per body-weight, moles per animal, and for dermal exposure, moles per square centimeter.

Emax model

[edit]

The Emax model is a generalization of the Hill equation where an effect can be set for zero dose. Using the same notation as above, we can express the model as:[12]

Compare with a rearrangement of Hill:

The Emax model is the single most common non-linear model for describing dose-response relationship in drug development.[12]

Shape of dose-response curve

[edit]

The shape of dose-response curve typically depends on the topology of the targeted reaction network. While the shape of the curve is often monotonic, in some cases non-monotonic dose response curves can be seen.[13]

Limitations

[edit]

The concept of linear dose–response relationship, thresholds, and all-or-nothing responses may not apply to non-linear situations. A threshold model or linear no-threshold model may be more appropriate, depending on the circumstances. A recent critique of these models as they apply to endocrine disruptors argues for a substantial revision of testing and toxicological models at low doses because of observed non-monotonicity, i.e. U-shaped dose/response curves.[14]

Dose–response relationships generally depend on the exposure time and exposure route (e.g., inhalation, dietary intake); quantifying the response after a different exposure time or for a different route leads to a different relationship and possibly different conclusions on the effects of the stressor under consideration. This limitation is caused by the complexity of biological systems and the often unknown biological processes operating between the external exposure and the adverse cellular or tissue response.[citation needed]

Schild analysis

[edit]

Schild analysis may also provide insights into the effect of drugs.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dose–response relationship

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The dose–response relationship quantifies the magnitude of a biological effect as a function of the administered dose of a substance, typically exhibiting a sigmoidal when response is plotted against logarithmically scaled dose, reflecting saturation of receptor or sites at higher exposures. This graded relationship underpins by delineating potency via parameters like the EC50, the concentration yielding 50% of maximal effect, and through the plateau response, while the Hill describes steepness indicative of molecular interactions such as . In , it informs by establishing no-observed-adverse-effect levels and thresholds, assuming monotonic increases in harm, though empirical data reveal non-monotonic patterns like , where low doses adaptive responses before high doses induce toxicity. These relationships extend to quantal responses in populations, tracking the proportion affected at each dose, essential for determining median lethal or effective doses in safety evaluations. Deviations from ideal models, driven by factors like receptor desensitization or metabolic activation, underscore the need for empirical validation over assumptions of linearity, influencing and regulatory thresholds grounded in causal exposure-outcome links.

Historical Development

Preclassical and Early Concepts

The earliest conceptual foundations of dose-dependent effects appear in , where (c. 750–650 BCE) articulated notions of and in , implying that extremes in quantity—whether of substances or actions—disrupt balance, while appropriate measures sustain health, a precursor to recognizing dosage as a modulator of outcome. This philosophical insight reflected empirical observations in agrarian and medicinal practices, where overconsumption of natural agents led to adverse effects, though without formalized measurement. Practical advancements emerged in Hellenistic toxicology through (r. 120–63 BCE), king of Pontus, who systematically tested poisons on prisoners and himself to develop tolerance via incremental exposure, culminating in the mithridatium—a polyherbal mixture administered daily in sublethal amounts to prevent lethality from larger doses. His experiments demonstrated that repeated small doses could induce resistance, while excessive amounts caused death, establishing an early empirical basis for dose-dependent immunity and toxicity, later documented by Roman historians like and . This approach underscored causal variability in response tied directly to quantity, influencing formulations across antiquity. In Greek and Roman medicine, physicians like (c. 460–370 BCE) observed dosage sensitivities in therapeutics, noting that remedies such as or opium produced therapeutic relief in moderation but toxicity or coma in excess, as recorded in the Corpus Hippocraticum, emphasizing individualized administration based on patient factors and amount to avoid harm. Pedanius Dioscorides (c. 40–90 CE), in , cataloged over 600 plants with specified quantities for efficacy versus danger, such as root in small doses for but lethal in larger ones, reflecting trial-and-error protocols in . (129–c. 216 CE) further refined these by experimenting with drug mixtures, advocating precise weighing and proportions to achieve desired humoral balance, warning that deviations amplified adverse effects—a proto-quantitative grasp of dose-response causality rooted in and animal trials. These preclassical practices, while lacking mathematical models, relied on direct observation of graduated outcomes from varying exposures, laying groundwork for later amid biases toward humoral theory rather than isolated causal mechanisms.

Classical Foundations in Toxicology and Pharmacology

The principle that the biological effect of a substance—whether therapeutic or adverse—depends on the administered dose originated in the work of (1493–1541), the Swiss physician and alchemist recognized as the father of . In his writings, particularly around 1538, Paracelsus articulated the foundational dictum: "All things are and nothing [is] without . Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a ," underscoring that no substance is intrinsically toxic or benign in isolation, but rather that toxicity emerges as a function of quantity relative to the organism's capacity to tolerate or metabolize it. This insight arose from his clinical observations and experiments with minerals like mercury and , which he employed to treat and other ailments; at low doses, these produced beneficial effects, while higher doses induced poisoning, establishing the rudiments of a where efficacy and harm are dose-segregated outcomes. Paracelsus' rejection of Galenic humoral theory in favor of chemical causation and empirical dosing rejected qualitative categorizations of , insisting instead on quantitative assessment through direct exposure trials, thereby embedding causality in measurable dose-response dynamics. In , these toxicological precepts paralleled early understandings of drug action as graded responses to varying doses, with himself bridging the fields by advocating iatrochemistry—the use of measured chemical preparations for healing. His approach influenced subsequent figures like François Magendie (1783–1855), who in the early 19th century conducted systematic experiments on substances such as and , demonstrating that physiological responses intensified predictably with increasing doses until saturation or lethality, thus quantifying the continuum from subtherapeutic to maximal effect. This laid groundwork for distinguishing pharmacology's focus on beneficial dose ranges from toxicology's emphasis on hazardous thresholds, both rooted in the invariant that response magnitude correlates with exposure level absent overriding biological nonlinearities. Classical toxicologists like (1787–1853) further operationalized this by developing analytical methods to detect and quantify poisons in cadavers, correlating postmortem tissue concentrations with administered doses to infer lethal thresholds, which reinforced dose as the pivotal causal determinant in forensic and experimental contexts. These foundations emphasized threshold-like behaviors where low doses might elicit no observable response, intermediate doses produce proportional effects, and high doses overwhelm , prefiguring modern sigmoidal curves without formal mathematics. Empirical validation came from animal and human trials, revealing inter-individual variability in sensitivity—due to factors like body size and metabolism—but consistently affirming dose as the primary modulator of outcome intensity. ' legacy thus instantiated causal realism in the disciplines: effects are not probabilistic or contextually absolute but mechanistically tied to dose via biochemical saturation, a unassailable by qualitative appeals to inherent "poisonousness" and pivotal for in both therapeutic dosing and hazard evaluation.

20th-Century Formalization and Debates

In 1910, Archibald Vivian Hill formulated the Hill equation to describe the sigmoidal oxygen-binding curve of , providing an early mathematical framework for phenomena that later influenced dose-response modeling in . This equation, expressed as Y=[L]nKd+[L]nY = \frac{[L]^n}{K_d + [L]^n} where YY is the fraction bound, [L][L] is concentration, nn is the Hill coefficient, and KdK_d is the , captured nonlinear responses and laid groundwork for analyzing graded effects across log-doses. By the , researchers like C.F. Shackell observed that dose-response curves typically exhibited a sigmoid shape when dose was plotted logarithmically, standardizing visualization for biological effects. In 1927, J.W. Trevan introduced the (LD50) concept in a paper critiquing minimal measures, proposing quantal dose-response analysis to quantify variability across populations using or transformations for statistical reliability. This shifted focus from individual thresholds to population-based metrics, enabling comparisons of substance potency in . The 1930s saw broader adoption in and , with C.I. Bliss developing probit analysis in 1934 for quantal data fitting and J.H. Gaddum advancing designs through the classical era (circa 1900–1965), emphasizing logarithmic dose scales to linearize sigmoid curves. Alfred J. Clark's 1937 Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology formalized applications, integrating dose-response with occupancy models while dismissing biphasic (hormetic) responses as artifacts linked to . Debates intensified over curve shapes and low-dose extrapolations, pitting threshold models—assuming safe doses below a no-effect level, dominant in early pharmacology—against linear no-threshold (LNT) assumptions emerging from 1920s radiation target theory and H.J. Muller's mutation studies. The LNT model gained traction post-1945 in radiological protection, endorsed by the 1956 U.S. National Academy of Sciences BEAR Committee under Shields Warren, prioritizing conservatism despite evidence for repair mechanisms and hormesis. Hormetic models, tracing to Hugo Schulz's 1880s biphasic discoveries and confirmed in 1930s bacterial studies by Sarah Branham, posited low-dose stimulation followed by high-dose inhibition but were marginalized as non-monotonic deviations from assumed monotonicity. These controversies, rooted in empirical discrepancies between high-dose data and low-dose biology, persisted, influencing regulatory thresholds versus zero-risk policies in toxicology.

Core Principles

Definition and First-Principles Basis

The dose–response relationship describes the quantitative correspondence between the administered dose or concentration of a substance and the magnitude or incidence of a resulting biological effect, applicable to drugs, toxins, and other agents in and . This association is typically graded, with response intensity increasing from negligible at low doses to maximal at high doses, forming the basis for determining safe and effective dosing regimens as well as hazard assessments. Empirical data from controlled experiments underpin this concept, revealing patterns that guide predictions of outcomes across exposure levels. At its mechanistic core, the relationship stems from molecular interactions governed by the , where the binding of an agent to biological targets—such as receptors or enzymes—occurs at rates proportional to their respective concentrations. Increasing dose elevates the agent's concentration at the target site, thereby raising the fraction of occupied targets via reversible equilibrium dynamics, which directly scales the activation of downstream signaling cascades and physiological responses. This receptor occupancy framework assumes effect proportionality to occupied targets until saturation, yielding characteristic hyperbolic curves that reflect causal saturation limits rather than arbitrary thresholds. Causal realism in dose–response analysis emphasizes direct linkages from exposure to molecular events, validated through dose-escalation studies that isolate agent-specific effects from baseline variability or external influences. While foundational models idealize monotonic progression, real-world deviations—such as non-linear kinetics or adaptive feedbacks—underscore the need for data-driven refinements, yet the core principle holds that response scales with effective target engagement probability. This empirical-mechanistic synthesis enables robust inference about safe exposure margins, distinguishing biologically plausible risks from noise.

Key Quantitative Parameters

In dose-response relationships, key quantitative parameters describe the potency, efficacy, and sigmoidicity of the response , enabling precise characterization of how a substance elicits biological effects. Potency is primarily quantified by the EC50 (effective concentration 50%), defined as the concentration of an required to achieve 50% of its maximal response in a given . Similarly, the IC50 (inhibitory concentration 50%) measures the concentration of an needed to inhibit 50% of the maximal response, serving as a counterpart for inhibitory agents. These half-maximal values provide a standardized metric for comparing potencies across experiments, though they assume a sigmoidal shape and can vary with conditions. Efficacy, representing the intrinsic capacity of a substance to produce a response, is captured by Emax, the plateau or maximum achievable effect, often normalized relative to a reference . A baseline effect E0 may also be included to account for non-zero responses at minimal doses. In pharmacological models like the Hill equation, the Hill coefficient (nH or n), which quantifies the steepness of the curve, indicates the degree of in receptor binding or downstream signaling; values greater than 1 suggest positive , while less than 1 imply negative or heterogeneity.
ParameterSymbolInterpretationContext
Effective concentration 50%EC50Concentration for 50% maximal agonistic effectAgonist potency in vitro or in vivo
Inhibitory concentration 50%IC50Concentration for 50% inhibitionAntagonist or inhibitor potency
Maximum effectEmaxPlateau response levelEfficacy measure
Hill coefficientnHCurve steepnessCooperativity indicator
In , analogous parameters include the (lethal dose 50%), the dose lethal to 50% of a test population, and ED50 (effective dose 50%) for therapeutic endpoints, often derived from quantal dose-response data where responses are binary (e.g., survival or effect occurrence). These parameters facilitate by extrapolating from controlled exposures, though interspecies variability and exposure duration must be considered for accurate application. Parameter estimation typically involves fitting to experimental data, with confidence intervals reflecting assay precision and variability.

Experimental Determination

Data Acquisition Methods

Data acquisition for dose-response relationships relies on controlled experiments exposing biological systems to graded doses or concentrations of an agent while quantifying the resultant response, ensuring sufficient replication and controls to enable statistical . Doses are typically administered in a logarithmic series to capture the full range from subthreshold to saturating levels, with vehicle-treated controls establishing baseline responses and positive controls validating sensitivity. Response metrics, such as inhibition or fractional effect relative to controls, are recorded for each dose group, often requiring multiple independent replicates to estimate variability and confidence intervals. In vitro methods predominate for initial screening due to their scalability and control over variables. Cell lines or primary cells are seeded in multi-well plates and treated with serial dilutions of the agent, followed by endpoint assays measuring outcomes like cytotoxicity via MTT reduction, ATP content, or apoptosis markers; functional responses via reporter gene expression, calcium flux, or receptor binding displacement using radioligands or fluorescence. High-throughput formats automate pipetting and readout, allowing thousands of conditions per run, with data normalized to untreated or maximal response wells. These approaches minimize ethical concerns and costs but may not fully recapitulate organismal pharmacokinetics. In vivo methods provide organism-level insights, particularly in and , by dosing cohorts of animals—such as via oral gavage, , or —with escalating levels and monitoring endpoints like lethality for LD50 estimation, tumor regression, or behavioral alterations over specified durations. Group sizes, often 5–10 per dose, are powered to detect monotonic trends, with necropsy or biomarkers assessing tissue-specific effects; designs like up-and-down dosing refine lethal dose estimates efficiently. Regulatory protocols, such as 425 for , standardize exposure routes and observation periods to ensure reproducibility, though inter-animal variability necessitates larger cohorts than in vitro setups. Ex vivo and early clinical methods bridge these scales: isolated tissues or organs respond to perfused doses in organ baths, measuring contractility or secretion, while phase I human trials use dose-escalation cohorts with safety monitoring via and . Across all methods, blinding, , and quality controls mitigate , with raw data logged for subsequent ; however, approaches face ethical constraints under frameworks like the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement).

Curve Construction Techniques

Curve construction techniques for dose-response relationships typically begin by plotting raw experimental data, with the logarithm of the dose or concentration on the x-axis and the measured response (e.g., of maximal effect for graded responses or cumulative incidence for quantal responses) on the y-axis, which compresses the dose range and reveals the characteristic sigmoidal shape. This logarithmic transformation is standard because biological responses often span orders of magnitude in dose, and linear scales distort low-dose regions; for instance, 5–10 doses spaced logarithmically (e.g., 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000 nM) are commonly used to capture the full . For graded (continuous) responses, such as inhibition or tissue contraction, non-linear regression is the primary modern technique to fit a smooth sigmoidal curve to the data points, estimating parameters like the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) via least-squares minimization. This involves selecting a model (e.g., four-parameter logistic: bottom + (top - bottom)/(1 + 10(logEC50 - X) * HillSlope)) and using iterative algorithms in software like GraphPad Prism or , with normalization of responses to 0–100% of maximum to facilitate comparison; confidence intervals for parameters are derived via profile likelihood methods to account for asymmetry in sigmoidal fits. Historical alternatives, such as double-reciprocal plots (1/response vs. 1/dose), have been largely supplanted due to heteroscedasticity and poor precision near the axes, requiring weighted regression that complicates analysis. For quantal (all-or-none) responses, such as mortality in studies, probit analysis linearizes the sigmoid by transforming the cumulative proportion responding (p) to probit(p) = Φ-1(p), where Φ-1 is the inverse cumulative , followed by against log dose to estimate the (LD50). This method assumes a of tolerances in the population and is implemented in statistical packages, yielding confidence intervals via maximum likelihood; analysis offers a similar logistic transformation but is less common for its steeper slope assumptions. To compare parallel curves (e.g., for potency ratios between agonists), techniques focus on the linear central segment: the quadratic check method fits quadratic and linear models iteratively, using to retain only doses where linearity holds, while simple linear regression serially excludes low-dose points until the fit's ANOVA is maximized. These ensure robust estimation of and intercept differences, with dose ratios calculated from x-intercepts; modern implementations favor full non-linear fits over segmented approaches for utilizing all data points. Outliers are assessed via residuals, and prioritizes biological plausibility alongside statistical fit (e.g., R2, AIC).

Mathematical Modeling

Sigmoidal Models: Hill Equation and Emax

Sigmoidal models predominate in describing agonist-induced dose-response relationships in pharmacology, capturing the nonlinear progression from negligible effects at low concentrations to maximal saturation at high concentrations. The Hill equation, introduced by Archibald Vivian Hill in 1910 for analyzing oxygen binding to hemoglobin, provides a parametric framework for these curves, empirically linking ligand concentration to fractional response via cooperative or steep transitions. In pharmacological contexts, it assumes that response magnitude correlates with receptor occupancy, modulated by binding site interactions, yielding the form E=Emax⁡[D]nEC50n+[D]nE = E_{\max} \frac{[D]^n}{EC_{50}^n + [D]^n}, where EE denotes the measured effect, [D][D] the agonist concentration, Emax⁡E_{\max} the asymptotic maximum effect, EC50EC_{50} the concentration eliciting half-maximal response, and nn (the Hill coefficient) a shape parameter reflecting curve steepness. The Emax⁡E_{\max} parameter quantifies the system's intrinsic efficacy ceiling, independent of dose, and serves as a benchmark for therapeutic potency comparisons across compounds or assays; for instance, full agonists approach tissue-specific Emax⁡E_{\max} limits, while partial agonists yield submaximal values even at saturating doses. Derivationally, the equation approximates mass-action kinetics for multisite binding under all-or-none cooperativity assumptions, though real systems often deviate, producing non-integer nn values (typically 0.5–3) that signal receptor heterogeneity or downstream amplification rather than strict stoichiometry. When n=1n = 1, the model simplifies to a hyperbolic Emax function akin to Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetics, suitable for non-cooperative binding, but sigmoidal forms with n>1n > 1 better fit empirical data for ligands exhibiting positive cooperativity, as evidenced in G-protein coupled receptor studies. Fitting the Hill equation to experimental data involves to estimate parameters, with EC50EC_{50} serving as a potency index (lower values indicate higher sensitivity) and nn informing mechanistic insights—values exceeding unity suggest ultrasensitivity or ensemble effects, while sub-unity nn may arise from receptor reserve or mixed populations. Limitations include sensitivity to baseline effects (often modeled as E=E0+Emax⁡[D]nEC50n+[D]nE = E_0 + E_{\max} \frac{[D]^n}{EC_{50}^n + [D]^n}) and assumptions of equilibrium, which overlook kinetic transients; nonetheless, its parsimony and fit to diverse datasets, from ion channels to behavioral endpoints, underpin its ubiquity in pharmacodynamic modeling. Validation against binding isotherms reveals discrepancies when response amplification decouples from occupancy, necessitating hybrid models for precise .

Alternative and Extended Models

In quantal dose-response analyses, where the outcome measures the proportion of a population exhibiting a binary effect, alternative models to the Hill equation include the probit and logit formulations, which assume underlying normal or logistic distributions of individual tolerances, respectively. These produce sigmoidal curves similar to the Hill but are parameterized differently, with the probit model applying the inverse cumulative normal distribution to the logit of the response probability for linear regression on log-dose. The log-logistic model offers another monotonic alternative, fitting S-shaped curves via a logistic function of log-dose, often preferred for its simplicity in estimating parameters like the median effective dose. In , benchmark dose (BMD) modeling extends classical approaches by fitting a family of continuous functions—such as exponential, gamma, Weibull, or log-probit—to dose-response data, then estimating the dose associated with a predefined response benchmark (e.g., 10% excess ) along with confidence bounds. This method avoids arbitrary low-dose extrapolations inherent in some sigmoidal models and accommodates variability across datasets by selecting the best-fitting model from nested alternatives based on or similar metrics. Threshold models represent a further alternative, positing a no-effect dose below which response remains at baseline due to homeostatic repair mechanisms, contrasting with linear no-threshold assumptions in certain assessments. Extended models incorporate dynamics beyond steady-state assumptions, such as pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) frameworks that link administered dose to plasma concentration via compartmental kinetics before applying an effect compartment model for response prediction. For time-dependent effects, recursive models parameterize response as following a Gompertz growth law in time modulated by a Hill-like dose term, enabling fits to longitudinal data from pharmacological time courses. In multi-agent scenarios, the MuSyC framework generalizes the Hill equation to synergistic or antagonistic combinations, deriving synergy scores from maximal response surfaces across dose grids without assuming additivity. For cell cycle-specific agents, the exponential kill (EK) model predicts non-sigmoidal curves by integrating drug exposure over sensitive phases, yielding steeper slopes or plateaus based on proliferation kinetics rather than receptor occupancy alone. These extensions enhance but require richer data, such as time-series or multi-dose matrices, to avoid .

Curve Shapes and Interpretations

Monotonic Relationships

Monotonic dose-response relationships describe scenarios where the biological effect changes consistently in one direction—typically increasing—with escalating doses of an agent, without reversal or points altering the slope's sign across the tested range. This pattern yields curves that are often sigmoidal, starting from a baseline, rising steeply through an , and plateauing at a maximum (E_max), reflecting saturation of the underlying mechanism such as receptor . In pharmacology, such relationships underpin quantitative parameters like the EC_50, the dose producing 50% of maximal response, enabling predictive modeling of therapeutic . These relationships are foundational in for establishing safe exposure limits, as the assumption of monotonicity supports extrapolation from high-dose experimental data to lower environmental levels, facilitating identification of thresholds like the (NOAEL). Empirical studies across chemicals and endpoints routinely demonstrate monotonicity, with the slope indicating response steepness and informing potency. For instance, in agonist-mediated responses, increasing ligand concentrations proportionally enhance signaling until receptor saturation, exemplifying causal progression without compensatory reversals. While deviations occur, monotonic patterns predominate in validated datasets, validating their use in regulatory frameworks despite debates over low-dose behaviors. The Hill equation, E = E_max * (dose^n / (EC_50^n + dose^n)), mathematically encodes this monotonic ascent, where n (Hill coefficient) modulates curve steepness but preserves directional consistency. This reliability aids interdisciplinary applications, from drug dosing to pollutant thresholds, emphasizing empirical verification over assumed universality.

Non-Monotonic and Biphasic Responses

Non-monotonic dose-response relationships describe biological responses where the direction of change in effect reverses as dose increases, resulting in curves such as inverted U-shapes (initial followed by inhibition) or U-shapes (initial inhibition followed by ). These patterns deviate from the typical sigmoidal monotonic increase or decrease assumed in standard models, often arising from multiple receptor interactions, feedback mechanisms, or compensatory physiological processes. Biphasic responses, a of non-monotonic patterns, exhibit two distinct phases—typically at low doses and inhibition at higher doses—driven by differential activation of signaling pathways or adaptive cellular responses. In , biphasic effects are observed with agents like umbelliprenin, a , which induces in Jurkat T-leukemia cells at low micromolar concentrations but inhibits it at higher levels above 1.0 µM, linked to concentration-dependent shifts in mitochondrial and activation. Similarly, in , endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as demonstrate non-monotonic curves in receptor-mediated outcomes, with low doses (e.g., 10^{-9} to 10^{-8} M) promoting MCF-7 cell proliferation via genomic signaling, while higher doses (10^{-6} M) suppress it through non-genomic rapid signaling overrides. These patterns challenge linear extrapolation from high-dose data, as the slope sign change occurs within environmentally relevant dose ranges, complicating risk assessments. Mechanistically, non-monotonicity can emerge from the superposition of multiple monotonic dose-responses, such as and effects on the same endpoint, or from dose-dependent shifts in , as seen in responses where low doses enhance growth via receptor upregulation and high doses induce through overload. In quantitative terms, these curves require extended models beyond the Hill equation, incorporating piecewise functions or parameters to fit the points, with statistical validation via clustering algorithms identifying biphasic profiles in high-throughput screens like Tox21 assays for receptors. Empirical evidence from over 1,000 studies across cell, , and models confirms NMDR prevalence for vitamins, hormones, and pharmaceuticals, underscoring the need for full dose-range testing to capture reversal points.

Applications Across Disciplines

Pharmacology and Therapeutics

In , the dose-response relationship delineates the magnitude of a drug's pharmacological effect as a function of its administered dose or plasma concentration, forming the basis for determining effective and safe dosing regimens. These relationships are graphically represented as sigmoidal curves when effect is plotted against the logarithm of dose, reflecting receptor occupancy principles where low doses yield minimal effects, intermediate doses produce graded responses, and high doses approach maximal . The curve's leftward shift indicates higher potency, quantified by the median effective concentration (EC50), the dose eliciting 50% of the maximal response, while is captured by the curve's plateau (Emax). Key parameters derived from dose-response curves guide therapeutic applications, including the , defined as the ratio of the median toxic dose (TD50) to the median effective dose (ED50), providing a quantitative measure of a drug's safety margin. A higher signifies greater separation between doses producing therapeutic benefits and those causing , with values exceeding 10 often deemed acceptable for many agents, though narrow-index drugs like require precise monitoring to avoid adverse events. In , these curves inform the selection of optimal doses by identifying the minimum effective dose and maximum tolerated dose, facilitating risk-benefit assessments in clinical trials where parallel and curves are compared. Therapeutically, dose-response data underpin individualized dosing strategies, accounting for pharmacokinetic variability such as differences in and clearance, to achieve target concentrations within the therapeutic —the range between minimal effective and toxic levels. For agonists, ascending curves predict graded responses like analgesia from opioids, while antagonist curves, often hyperbolic, quantify inhibition as in beta-blockers displacing agonists. In practice, this informs decisions, where combined dose-responses predict additive or synergistic effects, and supports regulatory approvals by demonstrating dose proportionality in efficacy without disproportionate toxicity escalation. Empirical dose-response studies in phase II trials thus optimize therapeutic outcomes, minimizing under- or overdosing risks across patient populations.

Toxicology and Environmental Risk

In toxicology, the dose-response relationship quantifies the association between exposure to a and the incidence or severity of adverse effects, serving as the foundation for identification and characterization. This relationship typically exhibits a monotonic increase in response with dose, often following sigmoidal curves derived from animal or studies, where low doses may show no observable effects up to a threshold, beyond which escalates. Key descriptors include the (NOAEL), defined as the highest exposure dose at which no statistically or biologically significant adverse effects are observed, and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), the lowest dose producing such effects. These metrics, identified from controlled studies, inform the derivation of safe exposure limits by applying uncertainty factors to account for interspecies and intraspecies variability, typically ranging from 10 to 100-fold. Environmental risk assessments leverage dose-response data to evaluate population-level hazards from contaminants like , pesticides, or air pollutants, integrating exposure estimates with response models to predict outcomes such as carcinogenicity or organ damage. For non-carcinogenic endpoints, agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculate reference doses (RfD) by dividing the NOAEL or benchmark dose (BMD)—a statistically derived point of departure often at 10% response level—by composite factors, establishing thresholds below which risks are deemed negligible. In microbial risk assessment, exponential or beta-Poisson models describe probability as a function of ingested dose, applied to pathogens in or . For persistent pollutants like dioxins, dose-response analyses incorporate and long-term low-dose exposures, using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models to extrapolate from high-dose data to human scenarios. Challenges in these applications arise from extrapolating across species and exposure durations, as human data are often limited to observational epidemiology, which may introduce confounders like co-exposures. Despite assumptions of thresholds for most toxins, regulatory practices for genotoxic carcinogens frequently employ linear extrapolation from high-dose data to zero dose, assuming proportionality without a safe threshold, though this is critiqued for overestimating low-dose risks in empirical contexts. Overall, robust dose-response assessments prioritize empirical endpoints like lethality (LD50: dose lethal to 50% of subjects) or reproductive toxicity, ensuring standards protect sensitive subpopulations such as children or the elderly.

Broader Contexts: Nutrition, Exercise, and Ecology

In , essential micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals typically exhibit U-shaped dose-response relationships, wherein intakes below or above physiological requirements increase risks of deficiency-related disorders or , respectively. This biphasic pattern reflects hormetic mechanisms, where suboptimal low doses impair cellular function while moderate doses optimize , but excess disrupts balance through or interference with absorption. For example, protein ingestion stimulates muscle protein synthesis in a dose-dependent manner up to approximately 20-40 grams per meal, beyond which additional intake yields due to saturation of anabolic pathways. Such relationships underscore the need for individualized nutrient dosing, as linear extrapolations from high-dose trials often overestimate benefits or underestimate harms at physiological levels. Exercise physiology reveals non-linear dose-response relationships linking physical activity intensity and volume to health outcomes and fitness/performance improvements. Moderate-to-vigorous activity reduces all-cause mortality risk by 20-30% at guideline levels (e.g., 150 minutes weekly), though curves plateau or flatten at higher doses, indicating upper limits before induces fatigue or . Overall performance often follows a parabolic (inverted U-shaped) curve, with gains increasing with dose up to an individual optimum, beyond which excessive volume or intensity leads to declines due to overtraining, injury, or fatigue. In resistance training, strength gains show a positive dose-response with volume (higher sets yield greater gains, with diminishing returns) and optimal intensity around 80% of 1RM for trained individuals. For aerobic fitness, VO2max improvements occur with moderate volumes (e.g., ≥30 min sessions 3x/week), with higher intensity often providing efficient gains per time, though inverted U patterns appear in specific populations. Hormetic adaptations explain low-to-moderate exercise benefits, as mild stressors like oxidative bursts upregulate defenses and , enhancing resilience without proportional gains from excessive volume. Daily step counts, for instance, correlate with lower risk in a dose-responsive fashion up to 8,000-10,000 steps, after which marginal improvements wane, highlighting non-linear thresholds influenced by baseline fitness. Ecological applications of dose-response modeling assess population-level responses to environmental stressors, such as pollutants or climatic shifts, often yielding sigmoidal or biphasic curves where low exposures may elicit adaptive (e.g., enhanced stress tolerance in microbial communities) before high doses trigger decline or . In populations, dose-response functions quantify stressor intensity against metrics like or survival probability, with multiple interacting factors (e.g., warming amplifying ) complicating monotonic assumptions and necessitating integrated models. Empirical ecological risk assessments derive no-effect concentrations from such curves, revealing thresholds where viability drops sharply, as seen in responses to . These frameworks emphasize causal linkages over correlative patterns, accounting for variability in exposure routes and species resilience to avoid underestimating low-dose stimulatory effects.

Limitations and Empirical Challenges

Methodological Constraints

Establishing dose-response relationships empirically is constrained by the inherent limitations of experimental design, particularly in selecting dose levels and ranges that adequately span the relevant biological or toxicological spectrum. Inadequate dose spacing or selection—such as omitting low doses near potential thresholds or high doses approaching saturation—can lead to incomplete curves, misestimation of parameters like , or failure to detect non-monotonic effects, as suboptimal ranges amplify fitting errors in sigmoidal models. Resource limitations often restrict the number of dose points tested, with optimal designs requiring careful allocation of sample sizes to balance precision across levels, yet practical constraints like cost and time frequently result in underpowered studies unable to distinguish true relationships from noise. Statistical analysis of dose-response data faces challenges from measurement variability and assay reproducibility, where imprecise quantification of exposure or response—exacerbated by biological heterogeneity in cell lines, tissues, or organisms—propagates errors into curve parameters, reducing confidence in potency estimates such as IC50 or NOAEL. In observational or epidemiological contexts, confounding factors like indication bias—wherein higher doses correlate with more severe conditions—can artifactually inflate apparent relationships, necessitating advanced adjustment methods that are not always feasible due to data incompleteness. Background exposures or interactions with unmeasured variables further distort curves, as spontaneous events or co-exposures alter baseline responses, complicating isolation of the primary dose effect. Ethical and practical barriers in human studies limit direct testing, particularly for toxicological endpoints, confining designs to safe dose escalations in trials and relying on surrogate animal or models that introduce interspecies pharmacokinetic differences and scalability issues. These proxies often fail to replicate , such as genetic polymorphisms affecting , leading to extrapolation uncertainties beyond tested ranges—especially at environmentally relevant low doses where mechanisms may shift from linear to hormetic. Non-linear regression assumptions in can overlook complex dynamics in heterogeneous populations, underscoring the need for robust validation across replicates, though high-throughput methods still grapple with throughput-precision trade-offs.

Biological Variability and Confounders

Biological variability manifests in dose-response relationships through interindividual differences in and , leading to heterogeneous responses to the same dose across a . Pharmacokinetic factors, such as variations in absorption, distribution, (e.g., via polymorphic enzymes), and , contribute substantially to this heterogeneity, with genetic influences accounting for up to 95% of variability in some metabolic pathways. Pharmacodynamic variability arises from differences in target receptor expression, affinity, or post-receptor signaling, often quantified by shifts in parameters like the EC50 or Hill slope in sigmoid models, resulting in a broader dose-response curve compared to individual curves. These sources of variability, including age, , , and comorbidities, propagate nonlinearly from dose to effect, with coefficients of variation typically ranging from 20-50% in human studies, complicating extrapolation from averaged data to individuals. Empirical evidence from twin studies and genome-wide association analyses confirms that heritable factors explain 30-60% of response variance for many , underscoring the limitations of uniform models in capturing real-world diversity. Confounders in dose-response assessments include physiological, environmental, and co-exposure factors that systematically bias the observed relationship by correlating with both dose and response without being part of the causal pathway. For example, underlying disease severity or indication can confound therapeutic dose-response curves, as sicker patients may receive higher doses and exhibit amplified effects, inflating apparent potency independent of the drug's inherent action. In , nutritional deficiencies or concurrent metal exposures act as confounders in assessing low-dose effects, altering susceptibility via mechanisms like induction or modulation, as seen in lead-IQ studies where socioeconomic factors and co-pollutants distorted linear extrapolations. Interactions with unobserved variables, such as composition or chronic , further challenge , necessitating stratified analyses or instrumental variable approaches to isolate true dose effects; failure to adjust can lead to overestimation of thresholds by 10-100 fold in models. High-quality experimental designs mitigate these by and covariate adjustment, but observational data remain prone to residual confounding, highlighting the need for mechanistic validation over correlative .

Controversies and Paradigm Shifts

Linear No-Threshold vs. Threshold Models

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model posits that the risk of s, such as cancer induction from or genotoxic carcinogens, increases linearly with dose from zero, implying no safe exposure level and proportionality even at low doses extrapolated from high-dose data. This framework emerged in the mid-20th century from analyses of atomic bomb survivors, where high acute doses showed stochastic risks, leading to regulatory adoption by bodies like the (ICRP) in 1951 for standards. In contrast, the asserts a dose below which no statistically significant occurs, attributable to biological repair mechanisms, processes, and adaptive responses that maintain at low exposures. Empirical challenges to LNT arise from radiation biology, where low doses (<100 mSv) fail to demonstrate increased cancer incidence in large cohorts, including nuclear workers and populations, contradicting linear extrapolations that predict measurable risks as low as 10 mSv. For instance, reanalyses of Life Span Study data from and indicate no excess cancers below 100-200 mSv, with confidence intervals encompassing zero or negative risks, while mechanisms like DNA double-strand break repair via are upregulated at low doses, overwhelming induced damage. Threshold models align with these findings, positing repair saturation only at higher doses; supporting evidence includes animal studies showing no mutagenicity or tumorigenesis below identifiable thresholds for agents like or certain solvents. In , LNT's application to non-threshold genotoxins relies on worst-case assumptions for policy, yet it underperforms against stress-response data where low-dose —beneficial effects—predominates over 30% of cases in peer-reviewed databases, challenging pure linearity. Threshold proponents cite pharmacokinetic barriers and enzymatic saturation; for example, detoxification handles low xenobiotic loads without net toxicity, as evidenced in models of chemical where no-effect levels are routinely observed below 1-10% of LD50 doses. Regulatory persistence of LNT, despite inconsistencies with low-dose (e.g., French nuclear workers showing reduced overall mortality at chronic low exposures), reflects precautionary principles over causal mechanisms, potentially inflating perceived risks and costs in environmental and occupational standards. Debates intensify in , with LNT criticized for ignoring dose-rate effects—protracted low-dose-rate exposures yield lower risks than acute equivalents due to repair recovery—while threshold models better fit deterministic endpoints like skin erythema (threshold ~2 Gy) and extend to ones via empirical bounds. Recent meta-analyses, including 2023 reviews, affirm that LNT overestimates low-dose harms, advocating hybrid approaches incorporating thresholds for precise modeling, though institutional inertia favors conservatism amid data uncertainties.

Hormesis and Low-Dose Stimulation Evidence

Hormesis manifests as a biphasic dose-response pattern in which low doses of potentially harmful agents elicit beneficial stimulatory effects, contrasting with inhibitory or toxic outcomes at higher doses. This phenomenon has been documented across diverse biological endpoints, including growth, , and repair mechanisms, through systematic analyses of toxicological . A comprehensive database compiled by researchers Edward Calabrese and Robyn Blain identifies approximately 9,000 dose-response relationships exhibiting hormetic characteristics from over 900 agents, spanning , microbes, , and vertebrates. These findings indicate that hormetic responses occur with greater than previously recognized threshold or linear models, challenging assumptions in . Quantitative features of hormetic stimulation are highly consistent, with the maximum response typically ranging from 30% to 60% above control levels, regardless of the agent or endpoint. The width of the stimulatory zone often spans 10- to 30-fold below the toxic threshold, reflecting adaptive overcompensation to mild perturbations in homeostasis. Such uniformity suggests hormesis as a fundamental expression of biological plasticity rather than agent-specific anomalies. In toxicological evaluations, including U.S. National Toxicology Program studies, low-dose enhancements in endpoints like cell proliferation and enzyme activity have been observed for numerous chemicals, supporting the model's predictive power over no-effect thresholds. Evidence from radiation exposure exemplifies low-dose stimulation, where doses below 100 mGy have stimulated DNA repair, immune function, and reduced mutation rates in cellular and animal models. Peer-reviewed syntheses confirm these effects in over 400 historical studies, with low-level ionizing radiation promoting longevity and tumor resistance in mammals. Similarly, in chemical toxicology, agents like arsenic and ethanol display hormetic profiles, enhancing growth or cognitive performance at sub-toxic exposures while impairing at higher levels. These patterns extend to pharmacological contexts, where preconditioning with low doses of stressors induces tolerance to subsequent challenges, as seen in ischemic preconditioning models. Despite methodological debates, the replication across independent datasets underscores hormesis's empirical robustness.

Recent Advances

Computational and High-Throughput Innovations

Computational models have increasingly incorporated techniques to predict dose-response relationships from molecular and genomic data, enabling efficient and reducing reliance on extensive wet-lab experiments. For instance, multi-output models have been developed to simultaneously forecast entire dose-response curves across multiple cell lines or cancer types, leveraging biomarkers to improve accuracy in drug sensitivity predictions. Similarly, deep generative models simulate single-cell responses to varying doses, allowing for the exploration of cellular heterogeneity without exhaustive physical assays. These approaches frame dose-response as probabilistic classifications or regressions, outperforming traditional parametric fits in handling noisy, high-dimensional data from studies. High-throughput screening innovations have streamlined dose-response curve generation by automating data acquisition and analysis, particularly in large-scale pipelines. Bayesian hierarchical models for HTS data provide robust estimates of potency (e.g., values) and while accounting for experimental variability, with significance tests for response detection enhancing hit identification rates. Nonlinear modeling frameworks, including evolutionary algorithms, fit diverse functional forms to HTS outputs, accommodating non-monotonic or biphasic responses observed in complex biological systems. Recent protocols integrate normalized response metrics to standardize across replicates, improving and enabling quantitative comparisons in panels. Pathway-level tools like DoseRider fuse datasets with dose-response modeling to infer causal mechanisms at the scale, supporting predictions of low-dose effects and combination therapies. quantitative HTS further extends these capabilities by generating dose-response data in whole organisms, prioritizing compounds via curve-derived metrics for downstream validation. Such integrations of computational prediction with high-throughput empirics address traditional limitations in scalability, though validation against mechanistic data remains essential to mitigate risks inherent in data-driven models.

Integration with Observational and Mechanistic Data

Observational data from epidemiological studies, such as cohort analyses of environmental exposures, often reveal associations that challenge purely empirical dose-response models by highlighting confounders like co-exposures and factors, necessitating integration to infer . Frameworks for evaluating dose-response in observational research emphasize rigorous adjustment for biases, including reverse causation and unmeasured variables, to avoid overinterpreting trends as causal. For instance, benchmark dose (BMD) modeling adapted for case-control epidemiological data enables estimation of points of departure with confidence intervals, facilitating comparison with controlled experimental results. Mechanistic data, derived from in vitro assays, pathway analyses, and omics profiling, grounds dose-response predictions in biological realism by modeling molecular interactions, such as receptor binding and downstream signaling cascades. Biologically based dose-response (BBDR) models exemplify this integration, incorporating toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic parameters to simulate responses across scales from cellular to organismal levels, outperforming phenomenological models in low-dose extrapolation. Systems toxicology advances further embed these mechanisms into adverse outcome pathways (AOPs), linking chemical exposures to apical endpoints via quantifiable key events, as validated in regulatory contexts for substances like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) represents a convergence of these data types, employing differential equation-based simulations to fuse observational from patient cohorts with mechanistic , enabling virtual trials for dose optimization. Recent omics-driven approaches, including transcriptomics and , integrate high-throughput mechanistic insights with dose-response curves to identify toxicity signatures, enhancing predictivity in as demonstrated in evaluations of pathways. augmentation of these integrations, via multi-omics data fusion and modeling, addresses data sparsity in observational sets while preserving , though validation against independent mechanistic benchmarks remains essential to mitigate . Such hybrid methodologies have supported refined risk assessments, for example, in reassessing non-linear responses to endocrine disruptors where observational trends align with receptor-level mechanisms.

References

  1. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/clinical-pharmacology/pharmacodynamics/dose-response-relationships
  2. https://www.pharmacologyeducation.org/introduction-dose-response-relationship
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2816740/
  4. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.4c02052
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/dose-response-relationship
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2656123/
  7. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bk-1984-0239.ch004
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10713937/
  9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12195028/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6226566/
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750018305808
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30450285/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8249946/
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009912006000907
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20118619/
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27214290/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4942381/
  18. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jts/35/1/35_1_1/_pdf
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5187834/
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303501345_Paracelsus_Revisited_The_Dose_Concept_in_a_Complex_World
  21. https://www.academia.edu/12876604/The_Hill_equation_and_the_origin_of_quantitative_pharmacology
  22. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1927.0030
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6117820/
  24. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/ld50.html
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9484288/
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935116309343
  27. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/49/9/725/246919
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4693576/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4693573/
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/receptor-occupancy
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2000728/
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3947796/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7033401/
  34. https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8549/4/4/97
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4655015/
  36. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/protein-biology/interrogation-protein-pathways/how-to-interpret-dose-response-curves
  37. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5c00131
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3040458/
  39. https://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/39/7/3413
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10474994/
  41. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pst.2421
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/dose-response-study
  43. https://www.fda.gov/media/71277/download
  44. https://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/latest/curve-fitting/dose_response___special.htm
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7249578/
  46. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=r-journal
  47. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1987.tb03030.x
  48. https://www.statsdirect.com/help/regression_and_correlation/probit_analysis.htm
  49. https://www.medcalc.org/en/manual/probitregression.php
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/probit-analysis
  51. https://uncsrp.github.io/Data-Analysis-Training-Modules/dose-response-modeling.html
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257417959_The_Hill_equation_and_the_origin_of_quantitative_pharmacology
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19049668/
  54. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-33706-7_9
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7042008/
  56. https://www.academia.edu/26117052/The_Hill_equation_a_review_of_its_capabilities_in_pharmacological_modelling
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Example-Nonlinear-Dose-Response_fig1_51732086
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/dose-response-modeling
  59. https://www.longdom.org/open-access-pdfs/doseresponse-relationship-in-toxicology-and-pharmacology-types-and-applications.pdf
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1367593119300365
  61. https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-019-2831-4
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8322415/
  63. https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/60/5/1417/507039/A-Mechanistic-Predictive-Model-of-Dose-Response
  64. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11376
  65. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6877
  66. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-14-13
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1852676/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6137554/
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23992683/
  70. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/3/718
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4036398/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4429934/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8528485/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9452481/
  75. https://www.pharmacologyeducation.org/therapeutic-index
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4412688/
  77. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.13949
  78. https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/What-is-a-Dose-Response-Curve.aspx
  79. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Environmental_Chemistry/Toxicology_MSDT/6%253A_Principles_of_Toxicology/Section_2%253A_Dose_and_Dose_Response/2.2%253A_The_Dose_Response_Relationship
  80. https://www.toxmsdt.com/26-noael-and-loael.html
  81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK584743/
  82. https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants
  83. https://www.epa.gov/risk/conducting-human-health-risk-assessment
  84. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/food-safety/publications/chapter5-dose-response.pdf
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2866670/
  86. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/197596
  87. https://www.chemsafetypro.com/Topics/CRA/Toxicology_Dose_Descriptors.html
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523241362
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6954109/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7727026/
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831324000486
  92. https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-020-01007-5
  93. https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/300
  94. https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/460
  95. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22958-8
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2836144/
  97. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072253
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556523000566
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896971932251X
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9709579/
  101. https://www.epa.gov/ecobox/epa-ecobox-tools-effects-effects-era
  102. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214640/
  103. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.6268
  104. https://escholarship.org/content/qt4bp1t13z/qt4bp1t13z_noSplash_2512521f0003f1fd7024471ead007846.pdf
  105. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11707/chapter/14
  106. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E4_Guideline.pdf
  107. https://www.graphpad.com/support/faq/how-do-i-perform-a-dose-response-experiment/
  108. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-023-03561-w
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4696409/
  110. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.14699
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6688638/
  112. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2020.1842851
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120305314
  114. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.11206
  115. https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/58/1/7
  116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009279718311177
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2663584/
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009279718310949
  119. https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/71/2/246/1660349
  120. https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/fulltext/2024/06000/a_review_of_recent_low_dose_research_and.4.aspx
  121. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/acdfd7
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273230011001309
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1299203/
  124. https://iubmb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.2529
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3058190/
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2656117/
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477686/
  128. https://tech.snmjournals.org/content/43/4/242
  129. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15667834/
  130. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-017-0013-z
  131. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-024-00691-x
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389923001861
  133. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27240883/
  134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3471146/
  135. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-0765-z
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12001094/
  137. https://journals.biologists.com/dmm/article/16/3/dmm049863/297266/In-vivo-quantitative-high-throughput-screening-for
  138. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-0122-1
  139. https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/203/2/166/7918318
  140. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39489609/
  141. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335822471_Mechanistic_integration_of_exposure_and_effects_Advances_to_apply_systems_toxicology_in_support_of_regulatory_decision_making
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11483046/
  143. https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/12/11/822
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S2635098X25000014
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.