Shape and steepness of toxicological dose-response relationships of continuous endpoints

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 270-297

  Slob, Wout ^a   Setzer, R Woodrow ^b  

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

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

BMD; Dose response shape; Historical data; Linearity; Model uncertainty; Parameter constraints; Sublinearity; Threshold

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; CELL PROLIFERATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; EX VIVO STUDY; FOOD INTAKE; IN VITRO STUDY; KIDNEY MASS; LIVER WEIGHT; MICRONUCLEUS TEST; NONHUMAN; TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE RESPONSE;

ANIMALS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; KINETICS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84894384349     PISSN: 10408444     EISSN: 15476898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2013.853726     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Appel MJ. (2001). Sub-acute (28-day) oral toxicity study with 1,4- dichlorobenzene in rats, TNO-report V3219, TNO Nutrition and Food research, Zeist, 2001.
2. Crump KS. (1984). A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam Appl Toxicol, 4, 854-71.
3. De Jong W, Van Och FMM, Den Hartog Jager CF, et al. (2002). Ranking of allergenic potency of rubber chemicals in a modified local lymph node assay. Toxicol Sci 2002, 66, 226-32.
4. De Jong WH, Van Der Ven LTM, Sleijffers A, et al. (2013). Systemic and immunotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in an intravenous 28 days repeated dose toxicity study in rats. Biomaterials, 34, 8333-43.
5. EFSA. (2009). European Food Safety Authority. Guidance of the scientific committee on use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J, 1150, 1-72.
6. Elhajouji A, Van Hummelen P, Kirsch-Volders M. (1995). Indications for a threshold of chemically-induced aneuploidy in vitro in human lymphocytes. Environ Mol Mutagen, 26, 292-304.
7. Faes C, Geys H, Aerts M, Molenberghs G. (2003). Use of fractional polynomials for dose-response modelling and quantitative risk assessment in developmental toxicity studies. Statistical Modelling, 3, 109-25.
8. Genschow E, Spielmann H, Scholz G, et al. (2002). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro embryotoxicity tests: results of the definitive phase and evaluation of prediction models. Altern Lab Anim, 30, 151-76.
9. Guha N, Roy A, Kopylev L, Fox J, et al. (2013). Nonparametric Bayesian methods for benchmark dose estimation. Risk Anal, 33, 1608-19.
10. IPCS (2009). Environmental Health Criteria, 239, Principles for Modelling Dose-response for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals. Geneva: WHO Press.
11. Moerbeek M, Piersma AH, Slob W. (2003). A comparison of three methods for calculating confidence intervals for the benchmark dose. Risk Anal, 24, 31-40.
12. Peto R, Gray R, Brantom P, Grasso P. (1991a). Effects on 4080 rats of chronic ingestion of N-nitrosodiethylamine or N-nitrosodimethylamine: a detailed dose-response study. Cancer Res, 51, 6415-51.
13. Peto R, Gray R, Brantom P, Grasso P. (1991b). Dose and time relationships for tumor induction in the liver and esophagus of 4080 inbred rats by chronic ingestion of N-nitrosodiethylamine or N-nitrosodiemtylamine. Cancer Res, 51, 6452-69.
14. Piersma AH, Verhoef A, te Biesebeek JD, et al. (2000). Developmental toxicity of butyl benzyl phtalate in the rat using a multiple dose study design. Reprod Toxicol, 14, 417-25.
15. Piersma AH, Janer G, Wolterink G, et al. (2008). Quantitative extrapolation of in vitro whole embryo culture embryotoxicity data to developmental toxicity in vivo using the Benchmark Dose approach. Toxicol Sci, 101, 91-100.
16. Shao K, Gift JS, Setzer RW. (2013). Is the assumption of normality or log-normality for continuous response data critical for benchmark dose estimation? Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 272, 767-79.
17. Slob W. (2002). Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol Sci, 66, 298-312.
18. SlobW. (2007). What is a practical threshold? Toxicol Pathol, 35, 848-9.
19. Stern BR, Solioz M, Krewski D, et al. (2007). Copper and human health: biochemistry, genetics and strategies for modeling dose-response relationships. J Toxicol Environ Health B, 10, 157-222.
20. US EPA (2002). Revised Organophosphorus Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment. Office of the Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
21. US EPA (2011). Benchmark Dose Software (BMDS). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. http:// www.epa.gov/ncea/bmds
22. US EPA (2012). Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. http://www. epa.gov/raf/publications/benchmarkdose.htm
23. Van Och FMM, Slob W, De Jong, WH, et al. (2000). A quantitative method for assessing the sensitizing potency of low molecular chemicals using a local lymph node assay: employment of a regression method that includes determination of the uncertainty margins. Toxicology, 146, 49-59.
24. Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. (2007). Properties of model-averaged BMDLs: a study of model averaging in dichotomous response risk estimation. Risk Anal, 27, 659-70.
25. Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. (2008). Model averaging software for dichotomous dose response risk estimation. J Statist Software, 26, 1-15.
26. Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. (2012). Monotonic Bayesian semiparametric benchmark dose analysis. Risk Anal, 32, 1207-18.
27. Woutersen RA, Jonker D, Stevenson H, et al. (2001). The benchmark 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, 39, 697-707.