FIELDS W, X, and Y 



Columns 68; 69 and 



70; and 71 



particular "biological field of study", though it would hardly be coded by Scales 1, 2, or 3. ) Thus, 

 the CBCC rating in Field Y can not be regarded as exact; in the example just cited, 2 days might be 

 coded in Field Y (as well as in Column 66 of Field U) with any of Symbols 7, 4, or 2, according to 

 which of Scales 6, 7, or 8 the coder elects to use, according to his best judgment, in Field U. 



For the reasons just explained, in retrieving data from the CBCC file, none of the Field Y values 

 derived by the time criteria should be regarded as being of high critical significance as a rating of the 

 test compound's ability to produce the response. Of the coding in Fields U, X, and Y, Field X defines 

 the time period the author has measured, Field U expresses fairly adequately the measure of that time, 

 while Field Y can only attempt to place a speculative rating on that measure according to the judgment 

 of the coder relative to the appropriateness of the scale used in Field U. The CBCC has persisted in 

 making these ratings of positive response according to time measurements, on the premise that its 

 coders' judgments in rating were of more significance than no rating at all of the positive activity and 

 that theoretically the rating coded in Field Y has some significance by having been derived through 

 accommodation to the specific response. Nevertheless, the person using the CBCC files should always 

 regard the Field Y ratings made with Criteria 10, 11, 12, and 13 as being only suggestive ratings and 

 his study of the coded results of the test should be concentrated on the definite information coded in 

 Fields T and U. 



The alternative to the provisions made by Field U would be the construction of a single, fixed 

 scale for Field U by which time values from all types or fields of chemical- biological data would be 

 rated. This, of course, would result in certain types of data (those typically involving only brief time 

 values or those typically involving only very long periods) all being coded by one or a few symbols at 

 one end of the evaluation scale (all being coded as being highly active or all as having very little 

 activity). It is suggested that the selection of only one of these two alternatives may be inadequate 

 and that, ideally, both evaluations are significant and provision for both should have been made by 

 the CBCC, the evaluation according to a single time scale being made for broad comparisons disregarding 

 the type of biological response involved (requiring subsequent reference to the coding in Field T to 

 discern what type of action was involved and evaluated in the test), as well as a second evaluation 

 according to the variable scale of Field U which would be an evaluation scaled to the type of biological 

 response (an evaluation to be used when studying an assortment of assembled coded data on biological 

 response of a given type). 



If the response which would have been measured in time values did not occur, Field X would be 

 coded with Criterion 01 with Symbol 1 in Field Y and Field W coded with Symbol J or K, according to 

 the character of the dose level, as explained in the section on General Use and in the Code. There- 

 fore, when Criterion 10, 11, 12, or 13 is coded in Field X, the data must be positive. Field W would 

 be coded according to whether tests had demonstrated the maximum speed of action or maximum duration 

 of action or maximum increase in survival and whether the dose administered had been demonstrated to 

 be the minimum needed to cause the observed measure of response. The use of Symbols L, M, N, 0, 

 and P in Field W for this information is also described in the section on General Use and in the Code. 



1 1. Criteria 14, 15, and 16; rating of intensity of the response according to therapeutic and 

 chemotherapeutlc indexes 



A common means of expressing a compound's value as a therapeutic agent is by relating its 

 beneficial "potency" (i. e. , the minimum quantity needed to cause the desired therapeutic result) to 

 its harmful "potency" (1. e. , the lowest quantity needed to kill the organism in its uninfected normal 

 state or the highest quantity that will not kill the organism). The ratio thus established provides a 

 comparative value for a compound, which can be rated according to a fixed scale; in other words, the 

 value indexes test compounds according to their therapeutic values related to their margins of safety. 



While such an index value is significant for purposes of comparing compounds, the CBCC 

 prefers coding the factors of the ratio independently, a biology code line for the curative action and 

 the minimum dose producing it, and a biology code line for the lethal action and the minimum dose 

 producing death or the maximum dose that does not produce death. 



However, an author occasionally does not provide the coder with anything but the index itself 

 (1. e. , neither the minimum curative dose nor the lethal dose which were used to calculate the index). 

 In this case, the coder has no choice but to code in Field X the terms of the author and for this 



- 188 



