Nonparametric bayesian methods for benchmark dose estimation

Risk Analysis

Volumn 33, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 1608-1619

  Guha, Nilabja ^a   Roy, Anindya ^a   Kopylev, Leonid ^b   Fox, John ^b   Spassova, Maria ^b   White, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

BMDL; BMDS software; Dirichlet distribution; Integrated Brownian motion

Indexed keywords

BMDL; DIRICHLET DISTRIBUTIONS; INTEGRATED BROWNIAN MOTION; NON-PARAMETRIC ESTIMATIONS; NONPARAMETRIC APPROACHES; NONPARAMETRIC BAYESIAN METHODS; NONPARAMETRIC METHODS; SIMULATION STUDIES;

ANIMALS; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ESTIMATION;

BENCHMARKING;

ANIMAL; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; ESTIMATION METHOD; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARAMETERIZATION; SIMULATION; SOFTWARE; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALIA;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOASSAY; BMDL; BMDS SOFTWARE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIRICHLET DISTRIBUTION; DNA DAMAGE; DOSE RESPONSE; INTEGRATED BROWNIAN MOTION; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; TOXICITY TESTING;

BMDL; BMDS SOFTWARE; DIRICHLET DISTRIBUTION; INTEGRATED BROWNIAN MOTION;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL ASSAY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA DAMAGE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOFTWARE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84884206592     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12004     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Crump KS. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 1984; 4:854-871.
2. Parham F, Portier C. Benchmark dose approach. Pp. 239-254 in Edler L, Kitsos CP (eds). Recent Advances in Quantitative Methods in Cancer and Human Health Risk Assessment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
3. Filipsson AF, Sand S, Nilsson J, Victorin K. The benchmark dose method-Review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2003; 33:505-542.
4. Crump KS, Howe R. A review of methods for calculating confidence limits in low dose extrapolation. Pp. 187-203 in Clayson DB, Krewski D, Munro I (eds). Toxicological Risk Assessment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985.
5. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Help Manual for Benchmark Dose Software, Version 2.2 Office of Research and Development, 2006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/bmds/documentation/bmds2_manual.pdf.
6. Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. Properties of model-averaged BMDLs: A study of model averaging in dichotomous response risk estimation. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27:659-670.
7. Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. Model averaging software for dichotomous dose response risk estimation. Journal of Statistical Software, 2008; 26:1-15.
8. Faes C, Aerts M, Geys H, Molenberghs G. Model averaging using fractional polynomials to estimate a safe level of exposure. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27:111-123.
9. Kopylev L, Fox J. Parameters of a dose response model are on the boundary: What happens with BMDL? Risk Analysis, 2009; 29:18-25.
10. Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. Bayesian monotonic semi-parametric benchmark dose analysis. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32:1207-1218.
11. Muller H-G, Schmitt T. Kernel and probit estimates in quantal bioassay. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1988; 83:750-759.
12. Dette H, Neumeyer N, Pilz KF. A note on nonparametric estimation of the effective dose in quantal bioassay. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2005; 100:503-510.
13. Dette H, Scheder R. A finite sample comparison of nonparametric estimates of the effective dose in quantal bioassay. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 2010; 80:527-544.
14. Park D, Park S. Parametric and nonparametric estimators of ED100 α. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 2006; 76:661-672.
15. Bhattacharya R, Kong M. Consistency and asymptotic normality of the estimated effective doses in bioassay. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 2006; 137:643-658.
16. Bhattacharya R, Lin L. Nonparametric benchmark analysis in risk assessment: A comparative study by simulation and data analysis. Sankhya B, 2011; 73:144-163.
17. Wand MP, Jones MC. Kernel Smoothing. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1995.
18. Gelfand AE, Kuo L. Nonparametric Bayesian bioassay including ordered polytomous response. Biometrika, 1991; 78:657-666.
19. Mukhopadhyay S. Bayesian nonparametric inference on the dose level with specified response rate. Biometrics, 2000; 56:220-226
20. Neelon B, Dunson DB. Bayesian isotonic regression and trend analysis. Biometrics, 2004; 60:398-406.
21. Bornkamp B, Ickstadt K. Bayesian nonparametric estimation of continuous monotone functions with applications to dose response analysis. Biometrics, 2009; 65:198-205.
22. Perron F, Mengersen K. Bayesian nonparametric modeling using mixtures of triangular distributions. Biometrics, 2001; 57:518-528.
23. Hwang BS, Pennell ML. Semiparametric Bayesian joint modeling of a binary and continuous outcome. Submitted.
24. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2003.
25. Cramer H, Leadbetter MR. Stationary and Related Stochastic Processes: Sample Function Properties and Their Applications. Dover Ed, 2004.
26. Karatzas I, Shreve SE. Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus. New York: Springer, 1991.
27. Wood S, Kohn R. A Bayesian approach to robust nonparametric binary regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1998; 93:203-213.
28. Yor M. On some exponential functionals of Brownian motion. Advances in Applied Probability, 1992; 24:509.
29. Matsumoto H, Yor M. Exponential functionals of Brownian motion, I, Probability laws at fixed time. Probability Surveys, 2005; 2:312-347.
30. Ramsay JO, Silverman BW. Functional Data Analysis. New York: Springer, 2006.
31. Choudhuri N, Ghosal S, Roy A. Bayesian nonparametric binary regression using a Gaussian process prior. Statistical Methodology, 2007; 4:227-243.
32. Nitcheva D, Piegorsch WW, West RW. On use of the multistage dose-response model for assessing laboratory animal carcinogenicity. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2007; 48:135-147.
33. Platel A, Nesslany F, Gervais V, Marzin D. Study of oxidative damage in TK6 human lymphoblastoid cells by use of the in vitro micronucleus test: Determination of no-observed-effect levels. Mutation Research, 2009; 678:30-37.