Estimation of a benchmark dose in the presence or absence of hormesis using posterior averaging

Risk Analysis

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 396-408

  Kim, Steven B ^a   Bartell, Scott M ^a   Gillen, Daniel L ^a  

^a University of California   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian model averaging; Benchmark dose; Hormesis; Multistage model

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

2 ,3 ,7 ,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZO P DIOXINS; BAYESIAN MODEL AVERAGING; BENCHMARK DOSE; DOSE RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS; ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY; HORMESIS; MULTI-STAGE MODELS; POSTERIOR PROBABILITY;

RISK PERCEPTION;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; BENCHMARKING; CANCER; CARCINOGEN; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HOMEOSTASIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RODENT;

RATTUS;

2,3,7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZO PARA DIOXIN; CARCINOGEN;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HORMESIS; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; LIVER TUMOR; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; PROBABILITY; PROCEDURES; RAT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPRAGUE DAWLEY RAT; UNITED STATES;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; CARCINOGENS; CARCINOMA, HEPATOCELLULAR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HORMESIS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; NEOPLASMS; PROBABILITY; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 84929577000     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12294     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance, EPA/100/R-12/001, Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012.
2. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin, LA. A quantitatively-based methodology for the evaluation of chemical hormesis. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 1997; 3: 545-554.
3. Calabrese EJ. The future of hormesis: Where do we go from here? Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2001; 31:637-648.
4. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicological Sciences, 2003; 71: 246-250.
5. Calabrese EJ, Cook RR. Hormesis: How it could affect the risk assessment process. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 2005; 24: 265-270.
6. Cook R, Calabrese EJ. The importance of hormesis to public health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2006; 114: 1631-1635.
7. Mushak P. Ad hoc and fast forward: The science of hormesis growth and development. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2009; 117: 1333-1338.
8. Thayer KA, Melnick R, Burns K, Davis D, Huff J. Fundamental flaws of hormesis for public health decisions. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005; 113(10): 1271-1276.
9. Raftery, AE, Madigan D, Hoeting JA Bayesian model averaging for linear regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1997; 92:171-191.
10. Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Augustin NH. Model selection: An integral part of inference. Biometrics, 1997; 53: 603-618.
11. 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.
12. Bailer AJ, Noble RB, Wheeler MW. Model uncertainty and risk estimation for experimental studies of quantal responses. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25: 291-299.
13. Moon H, Kim H, Chen JJ, Kodell RL. Model averaging using the Kullback information criterion in estimating effective doses for microbial infection and illness. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25: 1147-1159.
14. Shao K, Small MJ. Potential uncertainty reduction in model-averaged benchmark dose estimates informed by an additional dose study. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31: 1156-1175.
15. Biostatistical approaches to low level exposures. Ch. 6 in Calabrese EJ (ed). Biological Effects of Low Level Exposure Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1994.
16. Lutz WK. Dose response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis: Superposition of different mechanisms of action, resulting in linear-non-linear curves, practical thresholds, J-shapes. Mutation Research, 1998; 405: 117-124.
17. Hunt D, Rai SN. Testing threshold and hormesis in a random effects dose-response model applied to developmental toxicity data. Biometrical Journal, 2005; 47(3): 319-328.
18. Bogen KT. Generic hockey-stick model for estimating benchmark dose and potency: Performance relative to BMDS and application to anthraquinone. Dose-Response, 2011; 9: 182-208.
19. Crump KS. The linearized multistage model and the future of quantitative risk assessment. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 1996; 15: 787-798.
20. Armitage P, Doll R. A two-stage theory of carcinogenesis in relation to the age distribution of human cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 1957; 11: 161-169.
21. Armitage P. Multistage models of carcinogenesis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1985; 63: 195-201.
22. Zapponi GA, Marcello I. Low-dose risk, hormesis, analogical and logical thinking. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2006; 1076: 839-857.
23. Kociba RJ, Keyes DG, Beyer JE, Carreon RM, Wade CE, Dittenber DA. et al. Results of a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1978; 46(2): 279-303.
24. NTP (National Toxicology Program). Carcinogenesis bioassay of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (CAS No. 1746- 01-6) in Osborne-Mendel rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage study). NTP Technical Report No. 209. NTP-80-31. NIH 82-1765. Research Triangle Park, NC, and Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program, 1982.
25. Kuo L, Cohen MP. Bayesian analysis for linearized multi-stage models in quantal bioassay. Biometrical Journal, 1999; 41(1): 53-69.