Statistical handling of reproduction data for exposure-response modeling

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 48, Issue 13, 2014, Pages 7544-7551

  Delignette Muller, Marie Laure ^a,b,c   Lopes, Christelle ^a,b   Veber, Philippe ^a,b   Charles, Sandrine ^a,b,d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^c VETAGRO SUP   (France)

^d INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE DE FRANCE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

STOCHASTIC MODELS; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS;

BAYESIAN FRAMEWORKS; COUNT DATUM; COVARIATES; EFFECTIVE CONCENTRATION; OBSERVATION PERIOD;

DATA HANDLING;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; BIOASSAY; COVARIANCE ANALYSIS; DATA SET; MORTALITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; EXPOSURE RESPONSE MODEL; MORTALITY; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; PROGENY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; STOCHASTIC MODEL;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DAPHNIA; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTION; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84903716895     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: 15205851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es502009r     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Crump, K. S. Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data Risk Anal. 1995, 15, 79-89
2. Jager, T. Some good reasons to ban ECx and related concepts Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8180-8181
3. Landis, W. G.; Chapman, P. M. Well past time to stop using NOELs and LOELs Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2011, 7, vi-viii
4. Fox, D. R. Response to Landis and Chapman Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2011, 8, 1-4
5. Green, J. W.; Springer, T. A.; Staveley, J. P. The drive to ban the NOEC/LOEC in favor of ECx is misguided and misinformed Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2012, 1-17
6. Fox, D. R.; Billoir, E.; Charles, S.; Delignette-Muller, M. L.; Lopes, C. What to do with NOECS/NOELS - Prohibition or innovation? Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2012, 8, 764-766
7. OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals 211. Daphnia Magna Reproduction Test; OECD: Paris, France, 2012; pp 1-25.
8. OHara, R. B.; Kotze, D. J. Do not log-transform count data Methods Ecol. Evol 2010, 1, 118-122
9. OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals 211. Daphnia Magna Reproduction Test; OECD: Paris, France, 2008; pp 1-23.
10. Cameron, A. C.; Trivedi, P. K. Regression Analysis of Count Data; Cambridge University Press, 2013; pp 1-587.
11. Bailer, A. J.; Oris, J. T. Modeling reproductive toxicity in ceriodaphnia tests Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1993, 12, 787-791 (Pubitemid 23108022)
12. Zhang, J.; Bailer, A. J.; Oris, J. T. Bayesian approach to estimating reproductive inhibition potency in aquatic toxicity testing Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, 31, 916-27
13. Zeileis, A.; Kleiber, C.; Jackman, S. Regression models for count data in R J. Stat. Software 2008, 27
14. Gelman, A.; Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/hierarchical Models; Cambridge university press, 2007; pp 111-116.
15. Ver Hoef, J. M.; Boveng, P. L. Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: How should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 2007, 88, 2766-72 (Pubitemid 351345079)
16. Noe, D. A.; Bailer, A. J.; Noble, R. B. Comparing methods for analyzing overdispersed count data in aquatic toxicology Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29, 212-219
17. Bailer, A.; Elmore, R. Simulation study of characteristics of statistical estimators of inhibition concentration Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2000, 19, 3068-3073
18. Lindén, A.; Mäntyniemi, S. Using the negative binomial distribution to model overdispersion in ecological count data Ecology 2011, 1414-1421
19. Okamura, H.; Punt, A.; Amano, T. A generalized model for overdispersed count data Popul. Ecol. 2012, 467-474
20. Ducrot, V.; Pery, A.; Mons, R.; Quéau, H.; Charles, S.; Garric, J. Dynamic energy budget as a basis to model population level effects of zinc spiked sediments in the gastropod Valvata piscinalis Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2007, 26, 1774-1783 (Pubitemid 47265524)
21. Billoir, E.; Delhaye, H.; Forfait, C.; Clément, B.; Triffault-Bouchet, G.; Charles, S.; Delignette-Muller, M. L. Comparison of bioassays with different exposure time patterns: The added value of dynamic modelling in predictive ecotoxicology Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012, 75, 80-6
22. Wang, S.; Smith, E. Adjusting for mortality effects in chronic toxicity testing: Mixture model approach Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2000, 19, 204-209 (Pubitemid 30010447)
23. Thrusfield, M. Veterinary Epidemiology; 2 nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, 2013; pp 37-49.
24. Manar, R.; Bessi, H.; Vasseur, P. Reproductive effects and bioaccumulation of chlordane in Daphnia magna Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2009, 28, 2150-2159
25. Billoir, E.; Delignette-Muller, M. L.; Péry, A. R. R.; Charles, S. A Bayesian approach to analyzing ecotoxicological data Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 8978-8984
26. Ducrot, V.; Teixeira-Alves, M.; Lopes, C.; Delignette-Muller, M.-L.; Charles, S.; Lagadic, L. Development of partial life-cycle experiments to assess the effects of endocrine disruptors on the freshwater gastropod Lymnaea stagnalis: A case-study with vinclozolin Ecotoxicology 2010, 19, 1312-1321
27. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, 2013.
28. Ritz, C. Toward a unified approach to dose-response modeling in ecotoxicology Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29, 220-229
29. Venables, W. N.; Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S; Springer, 2010; pp 1-512.
30. Gelman, A.; Carlin, J. B.; Stern, H. S.; Rubin, D. B. Bayesian Data Analysis; Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2003; pp 1-668.
31. Plummer, M. Rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models Using MCMC, 2012
32. Raftery, A.; Lewis, S. One Long run with diagnostics: Implementation strategies for Markov Chain Monte Carlo Stat. Sci. 1992, 7, 493-497
33. Brooks, S. P. B.; Gelman, A. G. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations J. Comput. Graphical Stat. 1998, 7, 434-455
34. Spiegelhalter, D. J.; Best, N. G.; Carlin, B. P.; van der Linde, A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 2002, 64, 583-639
35. Ntzoufras, I. Bayesian Modeling Using WinBUGS; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2009; pp 1-493.
36. Ritz, C.; Streibig, J. C. Bioassay Analysis Using R J. Stat. Software 2005, 12, 1-22 (Pubitemid 40218001)
37. Cullen, A. C.; Frey, H. C. Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment: A Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs; Springer: New York, NY, 1999; pp 1-335.
38. Zhang, J.; John Bailer, a.; Oris, J. T. Estimating brood-specific reproductive inhibition potency in aquatic toxicity testing Environmetrics 2012, 23, 696-705
39. Kooijman, S.; Bedaux, J. Some statistical properties of estimates of no-effect concentrations Water Res. 1996, 1354, 1724-1728 (Pubitemid 26229430)
40. Jager, T.; Vandenbrouck, T.; Baas, J.; De Coen, W. M.; Kooijman, S. a L. M. A biology-based approach for mixture toxicity of multiple endpoints over the life cycle Ecotoxicology 2010, 19, 351-361
41. Billoir, E.; Delhaye, H.; Clément, B.; Delignette-Muller, M. L.; Charles, S. Bayesian modelling of daphnid responses to time-varying cadmium exposure in laboratory aquatic microcosms Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2011, 74, 693-702
42. Jager, T.; Barsi, A.; Hamda, N.; Martin, B.; Zimmer, E.; Ducrot, V. Dynamic energy budgets in population ecotoxicology: Applications and outlook Ecol. Modell. 2013, 280, 140-147
43. Jager, T. All individuals are not created equal; Accounting for interindividual variation in fitting life-history responses to toxicants Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1664-1669
44. Price, W. J.; Shafii, B.; Seefeldt, S. S. Estimation of dose-response models for discrete and continuous data in weed science Weed Technol. 2012, 26, 587-601