Erratum: BELLE Article: The hormesis concept and risk assessment: Are there unique ethical and policy considerations? (Human & Experimental Toxicology (2008) 27:8 (613-620) DOI: 10.1177/0960327108098487);The hormesis concept and risk assessment: Are there unique ethical and policy considerations?

Human and Experimental Toxicology

Volumn 27, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 613-620

  Hoffmann, G R ^a   Stempsey, W E ^a  

^a Department of Biology   (United States)

Author keywords

Dose response; High risk groups; Hormesis; Public health; Risk assessment; Threshold; Toxicologic risk

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HORMESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 57049133029     PISSN: 09603271     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0960327109103906     Document Type: Erratum

References (39)

1. Calabrese EJ. Toxicological diversity: making room for the U-shaped dose-response. Hum Exp Toxicol 2003 ; 22: 465 - 466.
2. Calabrese EJ. Hormesis: changing view of the dose response; a personal account of the history and current status. Mutat Res 2002 ; 511: 181 - 189.
3. Conolly RB, Lutz WK. Nonmonotonic dose-response relationships: mechanistic basis, kinetic modeling, and implications for risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 2004 ; 77: 151 - 157.
4. 4 Eaton DL, Klaassen CD. Principles of toxicology. In: CD Klaassen,, (ed), Casarett & Doull's toxicology: the basic science of poisons. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill ; 2001. p. 11 - 34.
5. 5 Auerbach C. Mutation research: problems, results, and perspectives. London: Chapman and Hall ; 1976.
6. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003 ; 100: 13761 - 13766.
7. National Research Council (NRC Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations). The effects on populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation (BEIR III). Washington, DC: National Academy Press ; 1980.
8. National Research Council (NRC Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiations). Health risk from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation (BEIR VII, Phase 2). Washington, DC: National Academy Press ; 2006.
9. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Hormesis: a generalizable and unifying hypothesis. Crit Rev Toxicol 2001 ; 31: 353 - 424.
10. Calabrese EJ. Historical blunders: how toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right. Cell Mol Biol 2005 ; 51: 643 - 654.
11. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. The frequency of U-shaped dose responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol Sci 2001 ; 62: 330 - 338.
12. Calabrese EJ. Cancer biology and hormesis: human tumor cell lines commonly display hormetic (biphasic) dose responses. Crit Rev Toxicol 2005 ; 35: 463 - 582.
13. Crump K. Evaluating the evidence for hormesis: a statistical perspective. Crit Rev Toxicol 2001 ; 31: 669 - 679.
14. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 2003 ; 71: 246 - 250.
15. Calabrese EJ, Staudenmayer JW, Stanek EJ, Hoffmann GR. Hormesis outperforms threshold model in NCI anti-tumor drug screening database. Toxicol Sci 2006 ; 94: 368 - 378.
16. Belyakov OV, Mitchell SA, Parikh D, Randers-Pehrson G, Marino SA, Amundson SA. Biological effects in unirradiated human tissue induced by radiation damage up to 1 mm away. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005 ; 102: 14203 - 14208.
17. Morgan WF. Genomic instability and bystander effects: a paradigm shift in radiation biology. Mil Med 2002 ; 167 (Suppl. 1): 44 - 45.
18. Morgan WF. Is there a common mechanism underlying genomic instability, bystander effects and other nontargeted effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. Oncogene 2003 ; 22: 7094 - 7099.
19. Morgan WF. Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: I. Radiation-induced genomic instability and bystander effects in vitro. Radiat Res 2003 ; 159: 567 - 580.
20. Morgan WF. Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: II. Radiation-induced genomic instability and bystander effects in vivo, clastogenic factors and transgenerational effects. Radiat Res 2003 ; 159: 581 - 596.
21. Morgan WF, Sowa MB. Effects of ionizing radiation in nonirradiated cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005 ; 102: 14127 - 14128.
22. Mothersill C, Seymour CB. Radiation-induced bystander effects and adaptive responses - the Yin and Yang of low dose radiobiology. Mutat Res 2004 ; 568: 121 - 128.
23. Mothersill C, Seymour CB. Radiation-induced bystander effects - implications for cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2004 ; 4: 158 - 164.
24. Mothersill C, Seymour CB. Radiation-induced bystander effects and the DNA paradigm: an "out of field" perspective. Mutat Res 2006 ; 597: 5 - 10.
25. Axelrod D, Burns K, Davis D, Von Larebeke N. "Hormesis" - an inappropriate extrapolation from the specific to the universal. Int J Occup Environ Health 2004 ; 10: 335 - 339.
26. Thayer KA, Melnick R, Burns K, Davis D, Huff J. Fundamental flaws of hormesis for public health decisions. Environ Health Perspect 2005 ; 113: 1271 - 1276.
27. Cairns J. Efficiency of the adaptive response of Escherichia coli to alkylating agents. Nature 1980 ; 286: 176 - 178.
28. Wolff S. The adaptive response in radiobiology: evolving insights and implications. Environ Health Perspect 1998 ; 106: 277 - 283.
29. Murry CE, Jennings RB, Reimer KA. Preconditioning with ischemia: a delay of lethal cell injury in ischemic myocardium. Circulation 1986 ; 74: 1124 - 1136.
30. Calabrese EJ, Bachmann KA, Bailer AJ, Bolger PM, Borak J, Cai L. Biological stress response terminology: integrating the concepts of adaptive response and preconditioning stress within a hormetic dose-response framework. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2007 ; 222: 122 - 128.
31. Elliott K. Conceptual clarification and policy-related science: the case of chemical hormesis. Perspect Sci 2000 ; 8: 346 - 366.
32. Tubiana M, Aurengo A. Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionising radiation: the joint report of the Academie des Sciences (Paris) and of the Academie Nationale de Medecine. Int J Low Radiation 2006 ; 2: 1 - 19.
33. 33 Ross WD. The right and the good. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company ; 1988. p. 21 - 22.
34. 34 Frankena W. Ethics. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall ; 1973. p. 47.
35. 35 Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press ; 2001. p. 114 - 116.
36. Cook R, Calabrese EJ. The importance of hormesis to public health. Environ Health Perspect 2006 ; 114: 1631 - 1635.
37. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Hormesis and high-risk groups. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2002 ; 35: 414 - 428.
38. Gaylor D. Safety assessment with hormetic effects. Hum Exp Toxicol 1998 ; 17: 251 - 253.
39. Elliott K. Error as a means to discovery. Philos Sci 2004 ; 71: 174 - 197.