Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA's benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1

Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

Volumn 254, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 181-191

  Davis, J Allen ^a   Gift, Jeffrey S ^a   Zhao, Q Jay ^b  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Benchmark dose; Benchmark dose software; Continuous data; Dichotomous data; Dose response; Nested data; NOAEL; Point of departure; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

TOXIN;

BENCHMARK DOSE SOFTWARE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIFFUSION; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; FOOD SAFETY; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NONHUMAN; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; TOXICODIFFUSION; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALS; BENCHMARKING; CARCINOGENS, ENVIRONMENTAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SOFTWARE; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 79959958755     PISSN: 0041008X     EISSN: 10960333     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2010.10.016     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory 1973, 267-281. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. B.N. Petrov, F. Csaki (Eds.).
2. Allen B.C., Kavlock R.J., Kimmel C.A., Faustman E.M. Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity: II. Comparison of generic benchmark dose estimates with NOAELs. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1994, 23:487-495.
3. ten Berge W.F. The toxicity of methylisocyanate for rats. J. Hazard. Mater. 1985, 12:309-311.
4. ten Berge W.F., Zwart A., Appelman L.M. Concentration-time mortality response relationship of irritant and systemically acting vapors and gases. J. Hazard. Mater. 1986, 13:301-309.
5. ten Berge W.F., Zwart A. More efficient use of animals in acute inhalation toxicity testing. J. Hazard. Mater. 1989, 21:65-71.
6. Crump K.S. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1984, 4:854-871.
7. Crump K.S. Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Anal. 1995, 15:79-89.
8. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Use of benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J. 2009, 1150:1-72.
9. Haseman J. Statistical issues in the design, analysis, and interpretation of animal carcinogenicity studies. Environ. Health Perspect. 1984, 58:385-392.
10. Kavlock R.J., Schmid J.E., Setzer R.W. A simulation study of the influence of study design on the estimation of benchmark doses for developmental toxicity. Risk Anal. 1996, 16:391-403.
11. NRC (National Research Council) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process 1983, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
12. R-project (The R Project for Statistical Computing), 2009. http://www.r-project.org/.
13. RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) PROAST: Software for dose-response modeling and benchmark dose analysis http://www.rivm.nl/en/foodnutritionandwater/foodsafety/proast.jsp.
14. Sand S., von Rosen D., Victorin K., Falk Filipsson A. Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci. 2006, 90:241-251.
15. Slob W. Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci. 2002, 66:298-312.
16. Tukey J., Ciminera J., Heyse J. Testing the statistical certainty of a response to increasing doses of a drug. Biometrics 1985, 41:295-301.
17. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Fed. Regist. 1986, 51(185):33992-34003.
18. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment. Fed. Regist. 1986, 51(185):34006-34012. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/backgr-d.htm.
19. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Guidelines for developmental toxicity risk assessment. Fed. Regist. 1991, 56(234):63798-63826. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/backgr-d.htm.
20. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 1995a. Use of benchmark dose approach in health risk assessments. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC; EPA/630/R-94/007. Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, PB95-213765.
21. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Integrated risk information system (IRIS): online substance file for methylmercury 1995, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
22. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Guidelines for neurotoxicity risk assessment. Fed. Regist. 1998, 63(93):26926-26954. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/backgr-d.htm.
23. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2000. Benchmark dose technical guidance document (External Peer Review draft). Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC; EPA/630/R-00/001. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20871.
24. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Fed. Regist. 2005, 70(66):17765-17817. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/backgr-d.htm.
25. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Benchmark Dose Software (BMDS) http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/bmds/index.html.
26. Wheeler M.W., Bailer A.J. Properties of model-averaged BMDLs: a study of model averaging in dichotomous response risk estimation. Risk Anal. 2007, 27:659-670.
27. Woutersen R.A., Jonker D., Stevenson H., te Biesebeek J.D., Slob W. The BMD approach applied to a 28-day toxicity study with rhodorsil silane in rats: the impact of increasing the number of dose groups. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2001, 39:697-707.
28. Zhu Y. Dose-time-response modeling of longitudinal measurements for neurotoxicity risk assessment. Environmetrics 2005, 16:603-617.