Strengths and weaknesses of Monte Carlo simulation models and Bayesian belief networks in microbial risk assessment

International Journal of Food Microbiology

Volumn 139, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2010, Pages

  Smid, J H ^a,d   Verloo, D ^b   Barker, G C ^c   Havelaar, A H ^a,d  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^b EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY   (Italy)

^c INSTITUTE OF FOOD RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bayesian belief network; Food safety; Microbial risk assessment; Monte Carlo analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYESIAN LEARNING; FOOD CHAIN; FOOD SAFETY; HAZARD; METHODOLOGY; MICROBIAL POPULATION DYNAMICS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; POPULATION SIZE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STOCHASTIC MODEL; BAYES THEOREM; EVALUATION STUDY; FOOD CONTROL; PRODUCT SAFETY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BAYES THEOREM; CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; FOOD MICROBIOLOGY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 77952639016     PISSN: 01681605     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.12.015     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. AGNS-Risk Assessments Links to JEMRA pathogen-commodity risk assessment pages 2009, http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/agns/jemra_riskassessment_en.asp.
2. Alban L., Stark K.D.C. Where should the effort be put to reduce the Salmonella prevalence in the slaughtered swine carcass effectively?. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2005, 68:63-79.
3. Barker G.C. Application of Bayesian belief network models to food safety science. Bayesian Statistics and Quality Modelling in the Agro-Food Production Chain 2004, 117-130. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
4. Barker G.C., Talbot N.L.C., Peck M.W. Risk assessment for Clostridium botulinum: a network approach. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 2002, 50:45-47.
5. Barker G.C., Malakar P.K., Del Torre M., Stecchini M.L., Peck M.W. Probabilistic representation of the exposure of consumers to Clostridium botulinum neurotoxin in a minimally processed potato product. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2005, 100:345-357.
6. Barker G.C., Gomez N., Smid J. An introduction to biotracing in food chain systems. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2009, 20:220-226.
7. Brooks S. Markov Chain Monte Carlo method and its application. Statistician 1998, 47:69-100.
8. Cooke R.M., Goossens L.H.J. Procedures guide for structured expert judgement. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2000, 90:303-309.
9. Coupé V.M.H., Gaag L.C.v.d. Properties of sensitivity analysis of Bayesian belief networks. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 2002, 36:323-356.
10. Cox L.A., Popken D.A. Bayesian Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis of human health risks from animal antimicrobial use in a dynamic model of emerging resistance. Risk Analysis 2004, 24:1153-1164.
11. Delignette-Muller M.L., Cornu M., Pouillot R., Denis J.B. Use of Bayesian modelling in risk assessment: application to growth of Listeria monocytogenes and food flora in cold-smoked salmon. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2006, 106:195-208.
12. Fernandes, M. and Barker, G.C., 2009. Institute of Food Research, Norwich. http://bbn.ifrn.bbsrc.ac.uk:8080/gary/bbnjp1.html.
13. Gelman A., Carlin J., Stern H., Rubin D. Bayesian Data Analysis 2004, Chapman and Hall/CRC.
14. Gilks W.R., Richardson S., Spiegelhalter D.J. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in practice: interdisciplinary statistics 1996, Chapman&Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida.
15. Havelaar A.H., Mangen M.J., de Koeijer A.A., Bogaardt M.J., Evers E.G., Jacobs-Reitsma W.F., van Pelt W., Wagenaar J.A., de Wit G.A., van der Zee H., Nauta M.J. Effectiveness and efficiency of controlling Campylobacter on broiler chicken meat. Risk Analysis 2007, 27:831-844.
16. Hill A., England T., Snary E., Cook A., Kelly L., Evans S., Wooldridge M. A 'Farm-to-Consumption' Risk Assessment for Salmonella Typhimurium in Pigs, Final Report 2003, Department of Risk Research, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Weybridge.
17. Ivanek R., Snary E.L., Cook A.J.C., Grohn Y.T. A mathematical model for the transmission of Salmonella typhimurium within a grower-finisher pig herd in Great Britain. Journal of Food Protection 2004, 67:2403-2409.
18. Jensen F.V. Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs 2001, Springer-Verlag, New York.
19. Latimer H.K., Marks H.M., Coleman M.E., Schlosser W.D., Golden N.J., Ebel E.D., Kause J., Schroeder C.M. Evaluating the effectiveness of pasteurization for reducing human illnesses from Salmonella spp. in egg products: results of a quantitative risk assessment. Foodborne Pathogenic Diseases 2008, 5:59-68.
20. Lauritzen S.L., Spiegelhalter D.J. Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1988, 50:157-224.
21. Lunn D.J., Thomas A., Best N., Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS - a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2000, 10:325-337.
22. Murphy, K., 2005. Department of Computer Science, University of British Colombia. murphyk/Bayes/bnsoft.html. http://people.cs.ubc.ca/.
23. National Research Council Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment 2009, The National Academies Press, Washington.
24. Nauta M.J. Modelling bacterial growth in quantitative microbiological risk assessment: is it possible?. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2002, 73:297-304.
25. Nauta M., van der Fels-Klerx I., Havelaar A. A poultry-processing model for quantitative microbiological risk assessment. Risk Analysis 2005, 25:85-98.
26. O'Hagan A. Bayesian analysis of computer code outputs: a tutorial. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2004, 91:1290-1300.
27. O'Hagan A. Research in elicitation. Bayesian Statistics and its Applications 2007, 375-382. Anamaya Publishers, New Delhi. S.K. Upadhyay, U. Singh, D.K. Dey (Eds.).
28. Parsons D.J., Orton T.G., D'Souza J., Moore A., Jones R., Dodd C.E. A comparison of three modelling approaches for quantitative risk assessment using the case study of Salmonella spp. in poultry meat. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2005, 98:35-51.
29. Pearl J. Causality: Models Reasoning and Inference 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
30. Pouillot R., Albert I., Cornu M., Denis J.B. Estimation of uncertainty and variability in bacterial growth using Bayesian inference. Application to Listeria monocytogenes. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2003, 81:87-104.
31. Pouillot R., Beaudeau P., Denis J.B., Derouin F. A quantitative risk assessment of waterborne cryptosporidiosis in France using second-order Monte Carlo simulation. Risk Analysis 2004, 24:1-17.
32. Ranta J., Maijala R. A probabilistic transmission model of Salmonella in the primary broiler production chain. Risk Analysis 2002, 22:47-58.
33. Robert C.P., Casella G. Monte Carlo Statistical Methods 2004, Springer-Verlag, New York.
34. Sauli I., Danuser J., Geeraerd A.H., Van Impe J.F., Rufenacht J., Bissig Choisat B., Wenk C., Stark K.D.C. Estimating the probability and level of contamination with Salmonella of feed for finishing pigs produced in Switzerland - the impact of the production pathway. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2005, 100:289-310.
35. Siu O.N., Kelly D.L. Bayesian parameter estimation in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 1998, 62:89-116.
36. Soudant D., Beliaeff B., Thomas G. Dynamic linear Bayesian models in phytoplankton ecology. Ecological Modelling 1997, 99:161-169.
37. Steeneveld W., van der Gaag L.C., Barkema H.W., Hogeveen H. Providing probability distributions for the causal pathogen of clinical mastitis using naive Bayesian networks. Journal of Dairy Science 2009, 92:2598-2609.
38. Titus, S., 2007. A novel model developed for Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment in the pork food chain (Thesis). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
39. Uusitalo L. Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecological Modelling 2006, 203:312-318.
40. Vose D. Risk Analysis, A Quantitative Guide 2000, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
41. Zwietering M.H. Quantitative risk assessment: is more complex always better? Simple is not stupid and complex is not always more correct. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2009, 134:57-62.