Human variability in susceptibility. How big, how often, for what responses to what agents?

Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 4, Issue 3-4, 1997, Pages 195-208

  Hattis, Dale ^a  

^a CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Inter individual; Pharmacodynamics; Risk assessment; Uncertainty; Variability

Indexed keywords

CANCER RISK; CARCINOGENESIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; PHARMACODYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 0031440692     PISSN: 13826689     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1382-6689(97)10012-6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Baird S.J.S., Cohen J., Graham J., Shlyakhter A.I., Evans J.S. Noncancer risk assessment: a probabilistic alternative to current practice. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2:1996;79-102.
2. Finkel, A.M., 1995. A quantitative estimate of the variations in human susceptibility to cancer and its implications for risk management. In: Olin, S. et al. (Eds.), Low-Dose Extrapolation of Cancer Risks: Issues and Perspectives. ILSI Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 297-328.
3. Finney, D.J., 1971. Probit Analysis, 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, London.
4. Hattis D., Erdreich L., Ballew M. Human variability in susceptibility to toxic chemicals, a preliminary analysis of pharmacokinetic data from normal volunteers. Risk Anal. 7:1987;415-426.
5. Hattis, D., Erdreich, L., Ballew, M., 1987. Human variability in susceptibility to toxic chemicals, I. Noncarcinogens. US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, ECAO-CIN-494, National Technical Information Service No. PB 87-101 242/AS.
6. Hattis D., Erdreich L., Ballew M. Human variability in susceptibility to toxic chemicals, a preliminary analysis of pharmacokinetic data from normal volunteers. Risk Anal. 7:1987;415-426.
7. Hattis, D., 1990. Modeling the Risk of Needlestick Transmission of HIV. M.I.T. Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development, CTPID 90-7, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
8. Hattis, D., 1993. Using indicator information for managing risks. In: Hackney, C.R., Pierson, M.D. (Eds.). Environmental Indicators and Shellfish Safety, ch. 14. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 364-380.
9. Hattis D. The importance of exposure measurements in risk assessment of drugs. Arch. Toxicol. S16:1994;201-210.
10. Hattis D., Burmaster D.E. Assessment of variability and uncertainty distributions for practical risk analyses. Risk Anal. 14:1994;713-730.
11. Hattis D., Silver K. Human inter-individual variability, a major source of uncertainty in assessing risks for non-cancer health effects. Risk Anal. 14:1994;421-431.
12. Hattis D. Variability in susceptibility, how big, how often, for what responses to what agents? Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2:1996;135-145.
13. Hattis D., Barlow K. Human inter-individual variability in cancer risks, technical and management challenges. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2:1996;194-220.
14. Hattis, D., 1997. Strategies for assessing human variability in susceptibility, and using variability to infer human risks. In: Neuman, D. (Ed.), Presented at the Int. Life Sci. Inst. Conf. on Inter-individual Variability. ILSI Press, Washington, D.C. (in press).
15. Jarup L., Elinder C.G., Spang G. Cumulative blood-cadmium and tubular proteinuria: a dose-response relationship. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 60:1988;223-229.
16. Lehman A.J., Fitzhugh O.G. 100-Fold margin of safety. Assoc. Food Drug Off. US Q. Bull. 18:1954;33-35.
17. McDonnell W.F., Stewart P.W., Andreoni S., Smith M.V. Proportion of moderately exercising individuals responding to low-level, multi-hour ozone exposure. Am. J. Resp. Crit. Care Med. 152:1995;589-596.
18. Nethercott J., Paustenbach D., Adams R.et al. A study of chromium induced allergic contact dermatitis with 54 volunteers: implications for environmental risk assessment. Occup. Environ. Med. 51:1994;371-380.
19. Nogawa, K., Kido, T., Shaikh, Z.A., 1992. Dose-response relationship for renal dysfunction in a population environmentally exposed to cadmium. In: Nordberg, G.F., Herber, R.F.M., Alessio, L. (Eds.), Cadmium in the Human Environment: Toxicity and Carcinogenicity. International Agency for Research on Cancer, pp. 311-318.
20. Peterson D.E., Kanarek M.S., Kuykendall M.A.et al. Fish consumption patterns and blood mercury levels in Wisconsin Chippewa Indians. Arch. Environ. Health. 49:1994;53-58.
21. Pierce D.A., Shimizu Y., Preston D.L., Vaeth M., Mabuchi K. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 12, part I. Cancer: 1950-1990. Cancer Res. 146:1996;1-27.
22. Rosenthal A., Gray G.M., Graham J.D. Legislating acceptable cancer risk from exposure to toxic chemicals. Ecol. Law Q. 19:1992;269-362.
23. Shlyakhter A.I., Kammen D.M. Sea-level rise or fall? Nature. 253:1992;25.
24. Travis C.C., Richter S.A., Crouch A.C., Wilson R., Klema E.D. Cancer risk management: a review of 132 federal regulatory decisions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:1987;415-420.
25. Wild P., Refregier M., Auburtin G., Carton B., Moulin J.J. Survey of the respiratory health of the workers of a talc producing factory. Occup. Environ. Med. 52:1995;70-477.