Talk:Dose–response relationship

Physical impossible concentrations on the dose response curve

The maximum concentration of anything in anything is less than 100 Molar, so the plot's x-axis going out to 10,000 Molar is a bit much. For reference, the concentration of water in water is about 55.5 molar and that is a reasonable maximum upper limit for concentration in an aqueous environment. The EC50 of 0.7 molar would correspond to 140 grams/liter (14% w/w) of a typical 200 molecular weight drug or toxin. That would be about 9.8 Kg evenly distributed in a 70 KG body weight person. Perhaps should relabel the x-axis as millimolar or micromolar and change the text to match. --Jsluka (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The link at the bottom of the page doesn't appear to work, wonder if it might be updated cheers "These inconsistencies can challenge the the validity of judging causality solely by the strength or presence of a dose-response relationship". Seems to me that if you get a dose-response relationship in an experiment, causality holds. Could anybody explain more on this point? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading dose response curve graphic

The slopes of the linear sections of the two dose response curves are almost identical. A casual glance could lead a reader to think that, while the curved ends differ, the slopes are supposed to be the same. Unless this is intentional, it would be useful to have an example that left no doubt as to whether the slopes should be the same or may differ considerably. 89.243.38.33 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge Effective dose and Dose-response relationship

Dose-response relationship already introduces all the concepts required to truly understand the concept of an effective dose. I am not convinced that the Effective Dose article is really going to grow much beyond a dictionary definition as all historical, etc information will likely be duplicated from dose-response. -- cmh^TC 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the Effective dose equivalent page useful in it's own right and do NOT believe this concept is adequately covered in the 'dose-response' relationship article.

These articles should be merged as Effective dose covers non pharmacology based information on radioactivity and hence deserves its own page. If no one disagrees over the next few days I will remove the merge template. Lethaniol 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"These articles should be merged as Effective dose ... deserves its own page"? Doesn't that mean that it shouldn't be merged? Also, wouldn't it be possibly more helpful to merge EC50 into Effective dose, than Effective dose into here? --PhiJ 13:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that some folks may be getting EC50 mixed up with ED-50, which is understandable. The two sound similar, but they are actually quite different concepts. Whereas the EC50 can be derived from a dose-response curve, the ED-50 is really not related to the dose-response curve at all (mathematically speaking). I can't see any reason to merge ED-50 with the dose-response article nor has a valid reason been provided in this discussion. I'll go ahead and remove the merge tag. However, given that the EC50 IS derived from the dose-response curve, perhaps merging those two articles would be more sensible. Jay†Litman 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No-threshold curve

Would be nice if somebody covered this as the article suggests that all dose-response curves have thresholds.--Santahul 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Medical Physics

The information regards medical physics should be kept under the title effective do[s]e, as this what it is called by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

No longer in article - not sure why. - Rod57 (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Figure

The graph on this page shows the fraction of receptors bound with changing agonist concentration. This is not what a dose-response curve illustrates. Dose-response curves relate the concentration of agonists (or antagonists) to a biological effect (ie. rate of enzymatic action). Receptor occupancy does not necessarily correspond to enzyme activity, as the maximal biological function of most cellular processes are achieved well below 100% occupancy.

It is true that the figure, as labeled, is not a dose-reponse curve. However, the y-axis could just as well read "response", in which case it would be appropriate. Also, the labels potency and efficacy on the figure are not sufficiently explained/discussed in the article. I don't have a figure that would immediately fix these issues, but I might be able to get/make one, eventually. Meanwhile, anyone else with one should feel free to replace it. Shanata (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this article also cover dose-response effect for drugs desired responses

Article only seems to cover undesirable responses. Should we include the desire for a dose-response effect in a new drug - or is that covered in another article? Currently dose-response effect redirects to this article. - Rod57 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

EC50 description seems wrong

Article says "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". Both the first and last thirds of that sentence seem wrong. EC50 is a point or single value, not a curve, and it is not defined as the inflection point of the curve. - Rod57 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Difference between "Dose-Response" and "Dose-Effect"

Hello!

I have written a draft on "dose-effect" but it has been declined by a reviewer. He has asked me to start a discussion here about whether technically "dose-effect" and "dose-response" should be separate terms or whether dose-effect relationship should be redirected to dose-response or made a section in dose-response. Please pour in your thoughts on this topic and help me out here. I really appreciate your input! Thanks. My draft: Draft:Dose_Effect Here are some clarifications from my end: Both the terms are similar but not necessarily synonymous. Let me explain how:

Dose-response can be defined as "The relationship between the amount of exposure [dose] to a substance and the resulting changes in body function or health (response)." [1]

On the other hand, dose-effect can be defined as "The relationship between the dose of harm-producing substances or factors and the severity of their effect on exposed organisms or matter." [2]

Dose-response is used to describe how a substance stimulates a (biological or biochemical) response in an organism. This substance could be beneficial or toxic for the organism. Alternatively, dose-effect is used to describe the severity of a toxic substance's harmful effect.

I believe we can add a section in the dose-response article about dose effect and internally link both the articles together. Would love to hear your thoughts on this! Amandawil (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force, and folks at Talk:Dose (biochemistry) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

In the usual practice of science analysis, there's no difference, and dose-effect certainly doesn't always mean harm-producing - that was a context for environmental statistics, as the source shows. Zefr (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Graph of dose-response starts at 10% response not 0%

Example side graph is weird.

Why doesn’t the response start at 0%?

Why is there about a 10% response without any stimulation? 103.247.195.70 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)