Hierarchical models for probabilistic dose-response assessment

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 265-272

  Kodell, R L ^a   Chen, J J ^a   Delongchamp, R R ^a   Young, J F ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Benchmark dose; Binomial; Internal dose; Michaelis Menten; Monte Carlo; PBPK; PK PD; Risk management; Two stage model; Uncertainty; Weibull

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DOSE RESPONSE; HEALTH HAZARD; MEASUREMENT; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 33745988229     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Andersen M.E. Development of physiologically based pharmacokinetic and physiologically based pharmacodynamic models for applications in toxicology and risk assessment. Toxicology Letters (1995) 35-44
2. Andersen M.E., Clewell III H.J., Gargas M.L., Smith F.A., and Reitz R.H. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics and the risk assessment process for methylene chloride. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 87 (1987) 185-205
3. Carlin B.P., and Louis T.A. Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis (1996), Chapman and Hall, New York
4. Chen, J.J., Moon, H., Kodell, R.L., 2006. A probabilistic framework for cancer and non-cancer risk assessment. NCTR technical report.
5. Clark L.H., Setzer R.W., and Barton H.A. Framework for evaluation of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models for use in safety or risk assessment. Risk Analysis 24 (2004) 1697-1717
6. Clewell H.J., and Andersen M.E. Applying mode-of-action and pharmacokinetic considerations in contemporary cancer risk assessments: an example with trichloroethylene. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 34 5 (2004) 385-445
7. Clewell H.J., Gentry P.R., Kester J.E., and Andersen M.E. Evaluation of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models in risk assessment: an example with perchloroethylene. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 35 5 (2005) 413-433
8. Crump K.S., and Howe R.B. A review of methods for calculating confidence limits in low dose extrapolation. In: Clayson D.B., Krewski D.R., and Munroe I.C. (Eds). Toxicological Risk Assessment (1983), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 187-203
9. Festing M.F.W. Use of a multistrain assay could improve the NTP carcinogenesis bioassay. Environmental Health Perspectives 103 1 (1995) 44-52
10. Gehring P.J., Watanabe P.G., and Park C.N. Resolution of dose-response toxicity data for chemicals requiring metabolic activation: example-vinyl chloride. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 44 (1978) 581-591
11. Gelman A., Bois F., and Jiang J. Physiological pharmacokinetic analysis using population modeling and informative prior distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91 (1996) 1400-1412
12. Hack C.E. Bayesian analysis of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models. Toxicology 221 (2006) 241-248
13. Kodell R.L., and West R.W. Upper confidence limits on excess risk for quantitative responses. Risk Analysis 13 (1993) 177-182
14. 1 in the diet. Food Additives and Contaminants 18 (2001) 237-253
15. Lipscomb J.C., Teuschler L.K., Swartout J., Popken D., Cox T., and Kedderis G.L. The impact of cytochrome P450 2E1-dependent metabolic variance on a risk-relevant pharmacokinetic outcome in humans. Risk Analysis 23 6 (2003) 1221-1238
16. NRC (National Research Council) 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
17. NTP (National Toxicology Program) (2005). Workshop: Animal Models for the NTP Rodent Cancer Bioassay: Strains & Stock-Should We Switch? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, June 16-17, 2005.
18. Quinn S.L., Bacon D.W., and Harris T.J. Notes on likelihood intervals and profiling. Communications in Statistics 29 (2000) 109-129
19. SAS Institute (1999). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Volume 2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
20. Schlosser P.M., Lilly P.D., Conolly R.B., Janszen D.B., and Kimbell J.S. Benchmark dose risk assessment for formaldehyde using airflow modeling and a single-compartment, DNA-protein cross-link dosimetry model to estimate human equivalent doses. Risk Analysis 23 3 (2003) 473-487
21. Starr T.B. Quantitative cancer risk estimation for formaldehyde. Risk Analysis 10 (1990) 85-91
22. Van Ryzin J., and Rai K. A dose-response model incorporating nonlinear kinetics. Biometrics 43 (1987) 95-105
23. Young J.F., Wosilait W.D., and Luecke R.H. Analysis of methylmercury disposition in humans utilizing a PBPK model and animal pharmacokinetic data. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A. 63 (2001) 19-52
24. Zeise L., Hattis D., Andersen M., Bailer A.J., Bayard S., Chen C., Clewell H., Conolly R., Crump K., Dunson D., Finkel A., Haber L., Jarabek A.M., Kodell R., Krewski D., Thomas D., Thorslund T., and Wassell J.T. Improving risk assessment: research opportunities in dose response modeling to improve risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8 (2002) 1421-1444