Abstract
In toxicological bioassays, organ weight is often expressed as a ratio to body weight or another denominator to account for natural differences in animal sizes. However, the relationship of treatment-induced organ and body weight change is complicated and relative weights may accordingly confound a toxicological assessment. In addition, the statistical assessment of relative weights is challenging. The examples given in this document show that toxicological interpretation of organ weight data in relation to body weight can be vastly improved by simple bivariate scatter plotting. Conversely, plots of relative organ weight are of limited value and may lead to an incorrect interpretation of toxic effects when used in isolation. Scatter plots are useful for qualitative hazard characterization and to generate hypotheses. Bivariate summary statistics indicate effect levels and help to explore the actual correlation of organ to body weight.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In toxicological bioassays, organ weight is often expressed as a ratio to body weight (Michael et al. 2007) or another denominator, to account for natural differences in animal sizes. There are, however, several issues with using relative organ weight data (Curran-Everett 2013), which have long been recognized (Angervall and Carlstrom 1963): the main problem is that an unbiased use of relative values is only possible if the regression line of nominator and denominator goes through the origin, i.e., the relationship of the ratio is constant (Bailey et al. 2004). If this is not the case, the use of relative values may result in a confounded toxicological assessment.
Organs’ weight data often do not scale linearly or do not pass through the origin within species, because different organs might require a certain size range to function normally—independent of body weight. It has been shown in rats, which is the common test species used in toxicological assays, that some organs do not correlate well with bodyweight and some seem to actually correlate better with brain weight (Bailey et al. 2004). Further, Trieb et al. (1976) showed that organ weights correlate better in an allometric power function with age, a method introduced by Huxley (1924). Hence, the required optimal relationship for relative values, as used in toxicology, is seldom achieved.
When a substance is tested in animals, it may affect a specific organ’s weight, body weight and other aspects of the organs. When a substance interferes with feeding or/and potentially caloric efficiency, this may also modulate organ weight—it has been shown that organ weights change due to food restriction (Feron et al. 1973; Oishi et al. 1979; Takizawa 1978). Most treatment levels in regulatory toxicology assays are derived from preliminary dose range-finding experiments with body weight reduction as the primarily observed general toxic effect. While the exact mode of action of organ weight modulation does not necessarily affect the value of using organ weight as a gross hazard characteristic, this results in complicated relationships: the treatment may affect parameters at different levels, and the treatment may affect the correlation of organ to body weight, e.g., when organs of lighter animals are more affected by the treatment than those of heavier animals. Treatment-induced mean effects on organ and body weight itself affect mean relative organ weight values irrespective of affecting other regression parameters, see Table 1. For example, due to the dependence on both variables in the fraction, relative organ weights are affected by a specific effect on body weight. Hence, relative values can never be assessed in isolation and their use may be scrutinized based on this alone (Stevens 1976).
Most internationally accepted test guidelines, which are followed in toxicological studies for regulatory purposes, require the determination of organ weights relative to body and also brain weight, e.g., repeated-dose test guidelines from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). While the calculation of relative organ weights is recommended in toxicological studies (Sellers et al. 2007), there is no guidance on how to interpret potential differences in such comparisons. There is also no guidance for when treatment diametrically affects multiple organ weights or whether some or all organs should be excluded from the body weight value, which has been proposed relatively early in the use of relative organ weights (Cumming 1929), as terminal body weight is the sum of all organ weights, skin, fur, bones and carcass.
An appropriate statistical analysis of relative values and its interpretation is surprisingly challenging (Curran-Everett 2013). In practice, relative organ weights are often analysed by the same methods applied to the absolute values, e.g., by ANOVA/Dunnett’s testing of the relative values themselves, which ignores any potential relationship of organ and body weight. A covariance approach may be more appropriate (Takizawa 1978), but may be hard to interpret (Hothorn 2016).
While the statistical interpretation of relative body weights can be difficult and misleading, a simple graphical bivariate scatter plotting may reveal an interpretable relationship that allows a toxicological assessment of organ to body weight or other ratio data by applying the principles of exploratory data analysis (Tukey 1977).
The current document describes the simple use of bivariate scatter plotting to analyse organ weight data in relation to body weight by examples and aims to make the method popular in the toxicological community. Scatter plotting can be performed by all software packages available to the researcher; here, the statistical software R (R Core Team 2017) and the ggplot2 package extension (Wickham 2016) were used. No animal studies were conducted for the current manuscript; all presented data come either from publically available sources (as referenced) or toxicological assays conducted for regulatory purposes (for the latter, not all tested groups are presented).
Using bivariate scatter plotting to analyse relative organ weights
The approach taken in this document is to assess organ weight relative to body weight by bivariate scatter plotting. This is an application of exploratory data analysis, which aims to present data in a way that creates insight and uncovers patterns—it does not concern formal inferential claims (Tukey 1977). It can be applied and understood with minimal statistical training.
Relative organ weights or other ratios or rates reduce two variables to a single one, which means that any information about their relationship is lost. By plotting the individual variables against each other—by bivariate scatter plots—and considering grouping information such as treatment levels by graphical methods, no information is lost and an informed toxicological qualitative hazard assessment is performed. There are several methods available to display grouping information in scatter plots: one can use different colours and shapes within the same plot or the dataset is spread over a plot array, called multi- or trellis plots (Cleveland 1985) or small multiples (Tufte 1990), which prevents overplotting.
Motivating example
Figure 1 depicts adrenal and body weight data presented and analysed in Angervall and Carlstrom (1963). The adrenal weight of two groups (A and B) is compared. Group B has an increased adrenal weight as compared to group A but also a higher body weight. While the absolute values are statistically significantly different, the organ weight ratios are not. The graphical presentation clearly shows that there are differences in adrenal weight (Fig. 1a) and body weight (Fig. 1c), but there is no difference in the relative organ weights (Fig. 1b). Based on only this information, one could conclude that the adrenal weights of group B are only higher, because the body weights of group B are higher than group A. However, Angervall and Calstrom’s comparative statistical analysis of “adjusted means” showed that “irrespective of differences in body weight, the adrenal weights are significantly unequal”.
Scatter plotting leads to the same conclusion: Fig. 1d clearly shows, that group B animals have higher adrenal weights while accounting for differences in body weight. While animals with a higher body weight also have higher adrenal weights (the regression lines have a similar slope), the individual values are shifted towards the direction of higher adrenal weights, i.e., their regression line y-intercepts are different. If group B animals would have a higher adrenal weight only because of higher body weight, the regression coefficients would be similar (group B regression line would be an extension of group A regression line).
The data from Angervall and Carlstrom (1963) are illustrative but seem less variable than usually observed in toxicological bioassays. Thus, further case studies, which exhibit more bivariate variation, are needed.
Visual guides and graphical summaries
While biological and toxicological graphs should include individual values for an unbiased assessment (Fosang and Colbran 2015; Nature Methods Editorial 2014; Pallmann and Hothorn 2016; Weissgerber et al. 2015), graphical summaries or guides help the viewer to detect patterns in scatter plots (Cleveland 1993). Various types of graphical guides are presented in Fig. 2 for the results of two treatment groups on liver and body weight. Common graphical guides are linear regression lines, but other methods are less common in toxicology such as robust regression (Marazzi and Joss 1993, both in Fig. 2a), scatter plot smoothers, i.e., locally weighted regression (also called locally estimated scatterplot smoothing, LOESS, Cleveland 1979), or smoothing splines (Reinsch 1967, both in Fig. 2b). While those give a very good estimate of the dependence of “y” on “x”, they do not graphically summarize the bivariate distribution.
Individual responses in organ to body weight graphs can be summarized and their distribution visualized by data ellipses (Monette 1990, Fig. 2c), which have several useful properties (Friendly et al. 2013). They give a visual aid for grouping and variance and their slope is similar to the linear regression slope. Data ellipses are, however, biased by extreme values and assume bivariate normal distribution, hence robust alternatives could be developed. Friendly et al. (2013) indicated methods using robust covariance estimates (Gnanadesikan and Kettenring 1972; Rousseeuw and Driessen 1999; Rousseeuw and Leroy 1987) in an early draft of the manuscriptFootnote 1 that could be used to enhance ellipsoids. Another method was introduced by Rousseeuw et al. (1999), namely the “bagplot” (Fig. 2d), which is a bivariate generalization of the common boxplot. However, the practical application of such robust methods is currently restricted by limitations of the available software.Footnote 2 Data ellipses can be generated by multiple software packages and the approach may even be modified to allow inferential claims based on the assumed bivariate distribution (Guilbaud and Karlsson 2011; Thöni 1988; Wan et al. 2019). However, bagplots may be preferred for a more unbiased analysis—both ellipsoids (not adjusted for multiple comparisons) and bagplots are used as visual summaries in the manuscript. Univariate responses of absolute and relative organ weights and body weights in the examples are shown as individual values and superimposed boxplots (Tukey 1977), to allow an unbiased assessment of the results and not as mean and standard deviation as commonly used for toxicological bioassays.
Joint effects
Similarly to the data in Fig. 1, Figs. 3 and 4 also show joint effects on both organ and body weight that are commonly observed in toxicology.
Figure 3 shows the results of 18 months of treatment of male mice with a pesticide on body and liver weight. Both liver weight (Fig. 3a) and relative liver weight (Fig. 3b) are increased by treatment, while body weight is decreased (Fig. 3c). Figure 3d indicates a large bivariate variation in the responses and body weight retardation by the treatment, three values show an extreme response—two from the control and one in the treatment group, which are prone to confound common statistical analyses. While alternative robust statistical methods are available that are better suited to analyse data containing extreme values (Hothorn and Kluxen 2019), these are seldom used in the toxicological community. Figure 2a–d shows different summary methods for the individual values shown in Fig. 3d.
A correlation of body and organ weight is indicated only for the control group and only for robust linear regression (see Fig. 2b—two black dashed lines), which is less affected by extreme values than the linear regression. Organ and body weight seem inversely correlated in the treatment group. The graphical assessment in Figs. 2c, d and 3d highlights that the treatment increases liver weight in addition to decreasing body weight.
Figure 4 shows the results of 13 weeks of gavage application of sodium dichromate dihydrate to female rats from the National Toxicology Program (NTP n.d.) as discussed in Hothorn (2016). Organ weight (Fig. 4a), relative organ weight (Fig. 4b) and body weight (Fig. 4c) are all decreased by the treatment. Accordingly, this is also seen in the organ vs body weight plot (Fig. 4d). The plot also shows a good correlation of organ and body weight within groups with similar slopes.
The pattern, i.e., ellipse shift towards the origin, indicates a general growth retardation induced by treatment. Further, the two high-dose ellipses have clearly lower liver weights, considering also lower body weights, and the highest dose is at the lower end of the body weight distribution, considering liver weight and one can accordingly formulate inferential hypotheses. The observation that ellipse sizes decrease with increasing dose helps to formulate a hypothesis about general growth retardation. Animals that presumably grow more than others in untreated conditions may be relatively more affected by treatment (refer to “Effect levels” for further assessment).
Isolated effects
The following cases describe isolated effect on either only organ weight (Fig. 5) or body weight (Fig. 6).
Figure 5 depicts the results of an uterotrophic assay according to OECD TG no. 440 (OECD 2007) with ethinyl estradiol by gavage application to female rats. Rats with removed ovaries (ovariectomized) are oestrogen depleted and have no functioning estrous cycle. As uterus size depends on oestrogen (and the cycle stage), depletion results in atrophy and an external treatment with an estrogenic agent results in increased uterus weight. This assay is used to identify estrogenic properties of chemicals.
There is a convincing induction of uterus weight upon oestrogen treatment (Fig. 5a), which is mirrored by the relative weight (Fig. 5b) but with no or only a weak effect on body weight (Fig. 5c). Absolute and relative uterus weight clearly show the same pattern and there is no gain of using relative weights, while there are issues with interpretation as outlined in the introduction. Conversely, the bivariate plot (Fig. 5d) is more informative than the relative uterus weight plot, because it shows the curious lack of correlation of organ and body weight, and does not obfuscate the effect on the absolute weights. An issue with the use of (normal) data ellipses becomes, however, apparent, as they are affected by extreme values.
Figure 6 shows the results of a 90-day rat study with dietary exposure to a pesticide. There is no effect on liver weight (Fig. 6a) and a pronounced effect on relative liver weight (Fig. 6b), which seems to be a calculation artefact due to the effect on body weight (Fig. 6c). The bivariate plot confirms this (Fig. 6d) and indicates a decreased variance of the bivariate distribution, i.e., indications of growth retardation—a smaller ellipse for the high concentration as compared to the others.
Effect levels
Bivariate plotting can be used to estimate effect levels instead of using univariate relative organ weight data with the associated issues (Curran-Everett 2013). Figure 7 shows the data already presented in Fig. 4, namely, liver weight data from a 13-week gavage application of sodium dichromate dihydrate to female rats from the National Toxicology Program. The dose levels progress over the plots from left to right and control and treatment levels are superimposed to allow a direct comparison.
The plot shows that the highest treatment groups behave clearly differently from the control. Hothorn (2016) presented multiplicity-adjusted p values for a bivariate Dunnett test for this dataset, which indicate a statistically significant effect on liver weight (at p << 5% alpha) for the 500 mg/kg bw/day group and a statistically significant effect for both liver and body weight at 1000 mg/kg bw/day. The graphical analysis supports the statistical assessment: the separation of the black treatment bagplot is more in the downward direction (liver weight) at 500 mg/kg bw/day but towards the origin at 1000 mg/kg bw/day.
Discussion
When the treatment affects both organ and body weight, a toxicological assessment based on relative values is prone to bias: relative values may obscure the actual relationship. This has been repeatedly discussed in literature (e.g., as reviewed in Bailey et al. 2004). Similarly, a statistical assessment of such values is problematic (Curran-Everett 2013; Hothorn 2016). Relative organ weights are used to account for different animal sizes and they may be preferred to decrease variation. Unfortunately, they do not (Stevens 1976)—and always have to be assessed together with the absolute organ and body weights.
The examples given in this manuscript demonstrate the use of scatter plotting to analyse organ weight depending on body weight. It is an accessible tool that allows qualitative hazard characterization and the generation of hypotheses. It is thus of more value than plotting relative values and should be preferred when graphically presenting such data.
Scatter plots have long been used in science (Friendly and Denis 2005; Wainer 2013) and are very common in biological sciences. Their application for relative weight data is therefore expected to be understood by all peers. While their use in relation to body weight is common in the field of allometry (Shingleton 2010), i.e., to compare animal strains (Anzai et al. 2017) or sexes (Heymsfield et al. 2007), it is uncommon in toxicology. While organ to body weight scatter plots were used to investigate correlation (Bailey et al. 2004) or to compare control populations in different laboratories (Weichenthal et al. 2010), they are not common while investigating the treatment effect. It is unclear why this is the case. Others observed the continuous use of uninformative bar plot means and standard deviation or error of the mean (Pallmann and Hothorn 2016; Weissgerber et al. 2015), while other summary methods such as the boxplot (Tukey 1977) have been available for decades and individual data points can be added to plots with all available graphing software today. Hence, there seems to be a need to educate about graphical methods and the use of exploratory data analysis.
The statistical assessment and interpretation of relative weights are unfortunately not trivial. Angervall and Carlstrom (1963) described a method to compare differences in organ weight depending on body weight. Their comparative method of using adjusted means is, however, only applicable for two groups. Shirley (1977) describes the analysis of covariance for relative weights. While covariate analysis seems to be more appropriate than the use of the relative weights (Takizawa 1978), both methods can result in incorrect assessments, i.e., when body weight is affected by treatment (Miller and Chapman 2001). Hothorn (2016) illustrates the issues of covariance analysis for the three most common organ to body weight relationships and proposes the application of a multivariate analysis (Andersen et al. 1999). This maintains alpha and allows the assessment of whether a weight effect occurs, at which dose on either organ or body weight. Overall, there seems to be no statistical ‘gold standard’ available. Further, there are no methods to derive benchmark doses for relative organ weights and Bayesian models are only in development.
Scatter plotting can be used to investigate the relationship of organ and body weight, however, it might be perceived to be inefficient to graphically investigate all collected organs weights in a toxicological bioassay. A research strategy might have to be developed on a case-by-cases basis.
If there is a change only in organ or body weight, one could make the case that the responses could be statistically compared in isolation. If there is a joint effect, a statistical bivariate analysis (Andersen et al. 1999; Hothorn 2016) can be applied. The statistical software R readily allows the application of multiple marginal models (Hothorn et al. 2008) in the multcomp package as described in Hothorn (2016) or Hothorn and Kluxen (2019).
Scatter plotting may be used to determine the strategy, help with the interpretation of the statistical result and can generate toxicological hypotheses. It may be extended by including multiplicity-adjusted summary statistics to make inferential claims and by plotting standardized values to compare the relative magnitude of observed effects (Festing 2014; Wan et al. 2019).
Conclusion
The toxicological interpretation of organ weight data in relation to body weight can be vastly improved by bivariate scatter plotting. Plots of relative organ weight are of limited value and may conversely lead to an incorrect interpretation of toxic effects when used in isolation. Scatter plots are useful for qualitative hazard characterization and help to generate hypotheses. Bivariate summary statistics indicate effect levels and help to explore the actual correlation of organ to body weight.
Notes
Friendly et al. (2013), http://datavis.ca/papers/ellipses.pdf.
Bagplots can be generated using, e.g. R software and the aplpack package by H. P. Wolf or ggplot2 together with some functions that are hosted on Ben Marwick’s GitHub repository.
References
Andersen H, Larsen S, Spliid H, Christensen ND (1999) Multivariate statistical analysis of organ weights in toxicity studies. Toxicology 136(2):67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-483X(99)00056-6
Angervall L, Carlstrom E (1963) Theoretical criteria for the use of relative organ weights and similar ratios in biology. J Theor Biol 4(3):254–259
Anzai H, Oishi K, Kumagai H, Hosoi E, Nakanishi Y, Hirooka H (2017) Interspecific comparison of allometry between body weight and chest girth in domestic bovids. Sci Rep 7(1):4817. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04976-z
Bailey SA, Zidell RH, Perry RW (2004) Relationships between organ weight and body/brain weight in the rat: what is the best analytical endpoint? Toxicol Pathol 32(4):448–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926230490465874
Cleveland WS (1979) Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 74(368):829–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038
Cleveland WS (1985) The elements of graphing data. Wadsworth Publ. Co., Belmont
Cleveland WS (1993) Visualizing data. AT & T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA
Cumming RR (1929) On the nature of hereditary size limitation. II. The growth of parts in relation to the whole. J Exp Biol 6(4):311–324
Curran-Everett D (2013) Explorations in statistics: the analysis of ratios and normalized data. Adv Physiol Educ 37(3):213–219. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2013
Feron VJ, de Groot AP, Spanjers MT, Til HP (1973) An evaluation of the criterion “organ weight” under conditions of growth retardation. Food Cosmet Toxicol 11(1):85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0015-6264(73)90064-3
Festing MFW (2014) Extending the statistical analysis and graphical presentation of toxicity test results using standardized effect sizes. Toxicol Pathol 42(8):1238–1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623313517771
Fosang AJ, Colbran RJ (2015) Transparency is the key to quality. J Biol Chem 290(50):29692–29694. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.E115.000002
Friendly M, Denis D (2005) The early origins and development of the scatterplot. J Hist Behav Sci 41(2):103–130
Friendly M, Monette G, Fox J (2013) Elliptical insights: understanding statistical methods through elliptical geometry. Stat Sci 28(1):1–39. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-STS402
Gnanadesikan R, Kettenring JR (1972) Robust estimates, residuals, and outlier detection with multiresponse data. Biometrics 28:81–124
Guilbaud O, Karlsson P (2011) Confidence regions for Bonferroni-based closed tests extended to more general closed tests. J Biopharm Stat 21(4):682–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2011.551331
Heymsfield SB, Gallagher D, Mayer L, Beetsch J, Pietrobelli A (2007) Scaling of human body composition to stature: new insights into body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr 86(1):82–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/86.1.82
Hothorn LA (2016) Statistics in toxicology using R. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Hothorn LA, Kluxen FM (2019) Robust multiple comparisons against a control group with application in toxicology. arXiv:1905.01838 [stat.AP]
Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50(3):346–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425
Huxley JS (1924) Constant differential growth-ratios and their significance. Nature 114:895–896
Marazzi A, Joss J (1993) Algorithms, routines, and S functions for robust statistics: the FORTRAN library ROBETH with an interface to S-PLUS. Wadsworth Publ. Co., Belmont
Michael B, Yano B, Sellers RS et al (2007) Evaluation of organ weights for rodent and non-rodent toxicity studies: a review of regulatory guidelines and a survey of current practices. Toxicol Pathol 35(5):742–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926230701595292
Miller GA, Chapman JP (2001) Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. J Abnorm Psychol 110(1):40–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.40
Monette G (1990) Geometry of multiple regression and interactive 3-D graphics. In: Fox J, Long JS (eds) Modern methods of data analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 209–256
National Toxicology Program (n.d.) 13 weeks gavage Study on female F344 rats administered with sodium dichromate dihydrate (VI) (CASRN: 7789-12-0, Study number: C20114. TDMS number: 2011402) Technical report
Nature Methods Editorial (2014) Kick the bar chart habit. Nat Methods 11:113. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2837
OECD (2007) Test no. 440: uterotrophic bioassay in rodents. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264067417-en
Oishi S, Oishi H, Hiraga K (1979) The effect of food restriction for 4 weeks on common toxicity parameters in male rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 47(1):15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-008X(79)90066-8
Pallmann P, Hothorn LA (2016) Boxplots for grouped and clustered data in toxicology. Arch Toxicol 90(7):1631–1638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-015-1608-4
R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Reinsch CH (1967) Smoothing by spline functions. Numer Math 10(3):177–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02162161
Rousseeuw PJ, Driessen KV (1999) A fast algorithm for the minimum covariance determinant estimator. Technometrics 41(3):212–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1999.10485670
Rousseeuw PJ, Leroy AM (1987) Robust regression and outlier detection. Wiley, New York
Rousseeuw P, Ruts I, Tukey JW (1999) The bagplot: a bivariate boxplot. Am Stat 53:382
Sellers RS, Mortan D, Michael B et al (2007) Society of toxicologic pathology position paper: organ weight recommendations for toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol 35(5):751–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926230701595300
Shingleton A (2010) Allometry: the study of biological scaling. Nat Educ Knowl 3(10):2
Shirley E (1977) The analysis of organ weight data. Toxicology 8(1):13–22
Stevens MT (1976) The value of relative organ weights. Toxicology 5(3):311–318
Takizawa T (1978) An unbiased comparison of organ weights when an inequality in body weight exists. Toxicology 9(4):353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-483X(78)90018-5
Thöni H (1988) Multiple comparisons and conditional joint confidence regions. In: Bauer P, Hommel G, Sonnemann E (eds) Multiple Hypothesenprüfung / Multiple Hypotheses Testing: Symposium, 6. und 7. November 1987. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52307-6_16
Trieb G, Pappritz G, Lützen L (1976) Allometric analysis of organ weights. I. Rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 35(3):531–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-008X(76)90076-4
Tufte E (1990) Envisioning information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT, USA
Tukey JW (1977) Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading
Wainer H (2013) Graphic discovery: a trout in the milk and other visual adventures. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Wan F, Kunz CU, Jaki TF (2019) Confidence regions for treatment effects in subgroups in biomarker stratified designs. Biom J 61(1):27–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700303
Weichenthal S, Hancock S, Raffaele K (2010) Statistical power in the analyses of brain weight measures in pesticide neurotoxicity testing and the relationship between brain and body weight. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 57(2):235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.03.001
Weissgerber TL, Milic NM, Winham SJ, Garovic VD (2015) Beyond bar and line graphs: time for a new data presentation paradigm. PLoS Biol 13(4):e1002128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128
Wickham H (2016) ggplot2—Elegant graphics for data analysis, 2nd edn. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people for educational discussions related to relative organ weights and associated issues: Dr. Stanley E. Lazic, AstraZeneca, for general discussions and the development of Bayesian models to assess toxic effects. Prof. Christian Ritz, University of Copenhagen, with regard to benchmark dose modelling and, Prof. Ludwig A. Hothorn for discussing different statistical methods to statistically compare relative organ weights.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kluxen, F.M. Scatter plotting as a simple tool to analyse relative organ to body weight in toxicological bioassays. Arch Toxicol 93, 2409–2420 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02509-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02509-3