Benchmark calculations in risk assessment using continuous dose-response information: The influence of variance and the determination of a cut-off value

Risk Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 1059-1068

  Sand, Salomon J ^a   Von Rosen, Dietrich ^b   Filipsson, Agneta Falk ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b Institute of Environmental Medicine ^*

Author keywords

Benchmark; Continuous response; Cut off value; Risk assessment; Variance

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ESTIMATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL METHODS;

STANDARD DEVIATION;

HEALTH HAZARDS;

DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP; HEALTH IMPACT; MEDICAL GEOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; HEALTH HAZARD; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIMULATION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0141482013     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00381     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Crump, K. (1984). A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 4, 854-871.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1995). The Use of the Benchmark Dose (BMD) Approach in Health Risk Assessment. Final report, EPA/630/R-94/007, Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
3. Gaylor, D., Ryan, L., Krewski, D., & Zhu, Y. (1998). Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 28, 150-164.
4. Allen, B. C., Gentry, R., Shipp, A., & Landingham, C. (1998). Calculation of benchmark doses for reproductive and developmental toxicity observed after exposure to isopropanol. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 28, 38-44.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002). The Benchmark Dose Software 3.1.1. Available at http://www. epa.gov/ncea.
6. Slob, W., & Pieters, M. N. (1998). A probabilistic approach for deriving acceptable human intake limits and human health risks from toxicological studies: General framework. Risk Analysis, 18, 787-798.
7. Crump, K. (2002). Critical issues in benchmark calculations from continuous data. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 32, 133-153.
8. Gaylor, D., & Slikker, W. (1990). Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects. Neurotoxicology, 11, 211-218.
9. Stiteler, W. M., & Swartout, J. (1991). Some statistical issues relating to the evaluations of risk levels at hazardous waste sites. In Proceedings of the Section on Statistics and the Environment, ASA, 39-43.
10. Kodell, R. L., & West, R. W. (1993). Upper confidence limits on excess risk for quantitative responses. Risk Analysis, 13, 177-182.
11. Crump, K. (1995). Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Analysis, 15, 79-89.
12. West, R. W., & Kodell, R. L. (1999). A comparison of methods of benchmark-dose estimation for continuous response data. Risk Analysis, 19, 453-459.
13. Cox, D., & Hinkley, D. (1974). Theoretical Statistics. London: Chapman & Hall.
14. Matlab5. (2002). User Manual for Matlab 5. Available at http:// www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/matlab. shtml.
15. Gaylor, D., & Chen, J. (1996). Precision of benchmark dose estimates for continuous (nonquantal) measurements of toxic effects. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 24, 19-23.
16. Liao, J. G., & Lipsitz, S. R. (2002). A type of restricted maximum likelihood estimator of variance components in generalised linear mixed models. Biometrika, 89, 401-409.
17. Auton, T. R. (1994). Calculation of benchmark doses from teratology data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 19, 152-167.
18. Kavlock, R. J., Schmid, J. E., & Setzer, R. W. (1996). A simulation study of the influence of study design on the estimation of benchmark doses for developmental toxicity. Risk Analysis, 3, 399-410.
19. Sand, S., Falk Filipsson, A., & Victorin, K. (2002). Evaluation of the benchmark dose method for dichotomous data: Model dependence and model selection. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 36, 184-197.
20. Slob, W. (2002). Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci., 66, 298-312.
21. West, R. W., & Kodell, R. L. (1993). Statistical methods of risk assessment for continuous variables. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 22, 3363-3376.