Comparing experimental designs for benchmark dose calculations for continuous endpoints

Risk Analysis

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1031-1043

  Kuljus, Kristi ^a   Von Rosen, Dietrich ^a   Sand, Salomon ^b   Victorin, Katarina ^b  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Benchmark dose; Dose response modeling; Hill models; Optimum designs

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; DATA ACQUISITION; HEALTH RISKS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

BENCHMARK DOSE; DOSE-RESPONSE MODELING; HILL MODELS; OPTIMUM DESIGNS;

BENCHMARKING;

CHEMICAL COMPOUND;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL COMPOUND; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; NONLINEARITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HEALTH HAZARD; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 33748421101     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00798.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Allen, B. C., Kavlock, R. J., Kimmel, C. A., & Faustman, E. M. (1994). Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity: II. Comparison of generic benchmark dose estimates with no observed adverse effect levels. Fundamental of Applied Toxicology, 23, 487-495.
2. Atkinson, A. C., & Donev, A. N. (1992). Optimum Experimental Designs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3. Barton, H. A., Andersen, M. E., & Allen, B. C. (1998). Dose-response characteristics of uterine responses in rats exposed to estrogen agonists. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 28, 133-149.
4. Chaloner, K., & Verdinelli, I. (1995). Bayesian experimental design: A review. Statistical Science, 10, 237-304.
5. Crump, K. S. (1984). A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundamental Applied Toxicology, 4, 854-871.
6. Crump, K. S. (1995). Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Analysis, 15, 79-89.
7. Edler, L., Poirier, K., Dourson, M., Kleiner, J., Mileson, B., Nordmann, H., Renwick, A., Slob, W., Walton, K., & Würtzen, G. (2002). Mathematical modelling and quantitative methods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 40, 283-326.
8. Falk Filipsson, A., Sand, S., Nilsson, J., & Victorin, K. (2003). The benchmark dose method - Review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 33(5), 505-542.
9. Ferguson, T. S. (1996). A Course in Large Sample Theory. London: Chapman & Hall.
10. Gaylor, D. W., & Aylward, L. L. (2004). An evaluation of benchmark dose methodology for non-cancer continuous-data health effects in animals due to exposures to dioxin (TCDD). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 40, 9-17.
11. Gaylor, D. W., & Slikker Jr., W. (1990). Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects. Neurotoxicology, 11, 211-218.
12. Kim, A. H., Kohn, M. C., Portier, C. J., & Walker, N. J. (2002). Impact of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling on benchmark dose calculations for TCDD-induced biochemical responses. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 36, 287-296.
13. Murrell, J. A., Portier, C. J., & Morris, R. W. (1998). Characterizing dose-response I: Critical assessment of the benchmark dose concept. Risk Analysis, 18, 13-26.
14. OECD.(2001). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals (408: Repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents). Paris: OECD.
15. Sand, S., von Rosen, D., Eriksson, P., Fredriksson, A., Viberg, H., Victorin, K., & Falk Filipsson, A. (2004). Dose-response modeling and benchmark calculations from spontaneous behavior data on mice neonatally exposed to 2,2',4,4',5-pentabromodiphenyl ether. Toxicological Sciences, 81, 491-501.
16. Slob, W., Moerbeek, M., Rauniomaa, E., & Piersma, A. H. (2005). A statistical evaluation of toxicity study designs for the estimation of the benchmark dose in continuous endpoints. Toxicological Sciences, 84, 167-185.
17. 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.
18. Toyoshiba, H., Walker, N. J., Bailer, A. J., & Portier, C. J. (2004). Evaluation of toxic equivalency factors for induction of cytochromes P450 CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 enzyme activity by dioxin-like compounds. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 194, 156-168.
19. U.S. EPA. (1995). The Use of the Benchmark Dose Method in Health Risk Assessment. Report EPA/630/R-94/007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
20. U.S. EPA. (2005a). The Benchmark Dose Software (BMDS), Version 1.3.2. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea.
21. U.S. EPA. (2005b). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/.
22. World Health Organization (WHO/IPCS). (1994). Assessing Human Health Risks of Chemicals: Derivation of Guidance Values for Health-Based Exposure Limits. Environmental Health Criteria 170. Geneva: International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization.