|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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 22.214.171.124 (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. 126.96.36.199 (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. -- cmhTC 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)
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)
The information regards medical physics should be kept under the title effective doe, as this what it is called by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
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)