Table 1.
AIC comparison of linear and non-linear dose-response models.
Table 2.
AIC comparison for simplification of indicated models.
Fig 1.
Comparison of mono and co-cultured dose-response trajectories in AIC-selected models for 4 compounds.
A) 4−aminophenol exhibited separate intercepts but equivalent slopes for mono-cultured fibroblasts (blue trace) and fibroblasts co-cultured with hepatocytes (red trace). B) Cyclophosphamide exhibited separate trajectories for mono-cultured fibroblasts (blue trace) and fibroblasts co-cultured with hepatocytes (red trace). C) Paroxon exhibited indistinguishable trajectories for mono-cultured fibroblasts and fibroblasts co-cultured with hepatocytes (purple trace). D) Ticlopedine exhibited separate intercepts but equivalent slopes for mono-cultured fibroblasts (blue trace) and fibroblasts co-cultured with hepatocytes (red trace).
Fig 2.
Comparison of A) GAMM, B) ANCOVA and C) ANOVA for cyclophosphamide.
ANOCOVA and ANOVA demonstrate insensitivity to the local maximum dose-response indicated by GAMM.
Fig 3.
Pearson residuals of A) GAMM, B) ANCOVA and C) ANOVA for cyclophosphamide dose-response.
GAMM exhibits a more even distribution of residuals than does ANCOVA or ANOVA (red trace).
Fig 4.
Graphic comparison of alternative models for paroxon dose-response.
The AIC preferred model (A, Wi = 0.64) fails to distinguish mono from co-cultured response (purple trace), while the less-preferred, yet still competitive model (B, Wi = 0.36) exhibits a modest difference in intercepts (red vs. blue trace).
Fig 5.
Graphic comparison of alternative models for ticlopedine dose-response.
The AIC preferred model (A, Wi = 0.71) exhibits a non-linear response for both mono and co-cultured fibroblasts, while the less-preferred, yet still competitive model (B, Wi = 0.21) exhibits a linear response.