Benchmark dose and the three Rs. Part II. Consequences for study design and animal use

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

Volumn 44, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 568-580

  Slob, Wout ^a  

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

Author keywords

Animal reduction; BMD approach; Combined analysis; NOAEL approach; PROAST; Study design; Three Rs

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANIMAL TESTING REPLACEMENT; ANIMAL USE; BENCHMARK DOSE; CARCINOGENICITY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DOSE RESPONSE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NONHUMAN; PROBABILITY; REPEATED DRUG DOSE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STANDARD DEVIATION; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; STUDY DESIGN; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; UNCERTAINTY; VARIANCE; ANIMAL; FEMALE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; QUALITY CONTROL;

ANIMALS; BENCHMARKING; DATASETS AS TOPIC; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; MALE; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; PROBABILITY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84904970972     PISSN: 10408444     EISSN: 15476898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2014.925424     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. 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
2. Gaylor DW, Chen JJ, Kodell RL. (1985). Experimental design of bioassays for screening and low dose extrapolations. Risk Anal, 5, 9-16
3. Hernandez LG, Van Benthem J, Slob W. (2012). Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test. RIVM report, 340700007, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
4. IPCS. (2009). Principles for modelling dose-response for the risk assessment of chemcials. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc239.pdf
5. Kavlock RJ, Schmid JE, Setzer RW. (1996). A simulation study of the influence of study design on the estimation of benchmark doses for developmental toxicity. Risk Anal, 16, 399-410
6. Krewski D, Smythe R, Fung KY. (2002). Optimal designs for estimating the effective dose in Developmental toxicity experiments. Risk Anal, 22, 1195-205
7. 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
8. Portier C, Hoel D. (1983). Optimal design of the chronic animal bioassay. J Toxicol Environ Health, 12, 1-19
9. Portier CJ, Hoel DG. (1984). Design of animal carcinogenicity studies for goodness-of-fit of multistage models. Fundam Appl Toxicol, 4, 949-59
10. Shao K, Small MJ. (2012). Statistical evaluation of toxicological experimental design for Bayesian model averaged benchmark dose estimation with dichotomous data. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J, 18, 1096-119
11. Slob W. (2002). Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol Sci, 66, 298-312
12. Slob W, Moerbeek M, Rauniomaa E, Piersma AH. (2005). A statistical evaluation of toxicity study designs for the estimation of the Benchmark dose in continuous endpoints. Toxicol Sci, 84, 167-85
13. Slob W, Setzer RW. (2014). Shape and steepness of toxicological dose-response relationships of continuous endpoints. Crit Rev Toxicol, 44, 270-97
14. Slob W. (2014). Benchmark dose and the three Rs. Part I. Getting more information from the same number of animals. Crit Rev Toxicol, 44, 557-67
15. Slob W, Setzer RW. (in prep.). Shape and steepness of toxicological doseresponse relationships of quantal endpoints
16. Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. (2007). Properties of modelaveraged BMDLs: A study of model averaging in Dichotomous response risk estimation. Risk Anal, 27, 659-70
17. Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. (2008). Model averaging software for dichotomous dose response risk estimation. J Stat Software, 26, 1-15.