Individual differences in sensitivity

Intraspecies 3—The test is optimized there is a built in safety factor because of the greater-than-physiological dose of epinephrine administered. In addition, there is no data indicating individual differences in sensitivity. ... 

Because the respiratory tracts of humans and monkeys are more similar than those of humans and rodents, because uptake is more rapid in the monkey than in humans, and because both species have been shown to be relatively insensitive to the incapacitative and lethal effects of HCN (but at the same time, species susceptibilities to lethal effects do not differ by more than a factor of 1.5), an interspecies UF of 2 was applied. Human (adult) accidental and occupational exposures (El Ghawabi et al. 1975) indicate that there are individual differences in sensitivity to HCN, as evidenced by symptoms fol... 

Impedance technology for determination of shrimp freshness, 248-260 applications, 253 influencing factors, 253-254 measurement temperature, 255,256/ monitoring procedure, 254 sample dilution, 254-256 shrimp preparation procedure, 254 storage temperature, 255-259 thermal processing, 254-257 Independent receptor mechanism, 32 Individual differences in sensitivity, taste, 19,2(y... 

Mogil JS. The genetic mediation of individual differences in sensitivity to pain and its inhibition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 96(14) 7744-51 [review]. 

Mice did not show any symptoms after administration for at least several hours, and thereafter they gradually weakened—even at 900 )tg/kg within 4 h there was no change. The lethal toxicity of AZA-1 to mice by oral administration was about 250-500 (tg/kg (b.w.). Mice showed individual differences in sensitivity to the toxin, especially aging-induced death, even at as low a dose as 250 Tg/kg (Ito et al., 2002) (Table 36.2). 

In the other case, the preliminary precaution principle was respected regarding the evaluation of risk acceptability. For that, action values of dosimetric quantities Sr or, if need be, Er defined by the Directive (EUPC. 2004) were used. An rmcertainty related to the existence of athermal effects during the exposure to NIEMF was incorporated using the uncertainty factor UF = 10 and an rmcertainty related to the individual differences in sensitivity was incorporated in the form of the uncertainty factor UFsd = 2. 

It must be noted that in the case of FP, the logic behind recruiting several panellists is slightly different from that of conventional profiling. Because of inter-individual differences in sensitivity and performances, it is necessary in conventional profiling to stabilize the panel s outcome by the use of several panellists. In however, the panellists responses are seen as complementary measures instead of repeated measures. Actually, the use of an FCP procedure accounts for the fact that subjects perceptions may differ in nature, not only in terms of sensitivity. Consequently, the selection criteria are perhaps more important to the quality of the description than the number of recruited subjects. 

Much more striking than individual differences in sensitivity are the differences across individuals in their response to longer-duration puffs of CO2. Some individuals exhibit rapid adaptation to the CO2, whereas others appear to be resistant to adaptation (unpublished). The mechanisms underlying such differences remain to be elucidated. 

---