IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i5p1059-1068.html

Benchmark Calculations in Risk Assessment Using Continuous Dose‐Response Information: The Influence of Variance and the Determination of a Cut‐Off Value

Author

Listed:
  • Salomon J. Sand
  • Dietrich Von Rosen
  • Agneta Falk Filipsson

Abstract

A benchmark dose (BMD) is the dose of a chemical that corresponds to a predetermined increase in the response (the benchmark response, BMR) of a health effect. In this article, a method (the hybrid approach) for benchmark calculations from continuous dose‐response information is investigated. In the formulation of the methodology, a cut‐off value for an adverse health effect has to be determined. It is shown that the influence of variance on the hybrid model depends on the choice of determination of the cut‐off point. If the cut‐off value is determined as corresponding to a specified tail proportion of the control distribution, P(0), the BMD becomes biased upward when the variance is biased upward. On the contrary, if the cut‐off value is directly determined to some level of the continuous response variable, the BMD becomes biased upward when the variance is biased downward. A simulation study was also performed in which the accuracy and precision of the BMD was compared for the two ways of determining the cut‐off value. In general, considering BMRs of 1, 5, and 10% (additional risk) the precision of the BMD became higher when the cut‐off value was estimated by specifying P(0), relative to the case with a direct determination. Use of the square‐root of the maximum‐likelihood estimator of the variance in BMD estimation may provide a bias that is reflected by the cut‐off formulation (downward bias if specifying P(0), and upward bias if specifying the cut‐off, c, directly). This feature may be reduced if an unbiased estimator of the standard deviation is used in the calculations.

Suggested Citation

  • Salomon J. Sand & Dietrich Von Rosen & Agneta Falk Filipsson, 2003. "Benchmark Calculations in Risk Assessment Using Continuous Dose‐Response Information: The Influence of Variance and the Determination of a Cut‐Off Value," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 1059-1068, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:5:p:1059-1068
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Slob & M. N. Pieters, 1998. "A Probabilistic Approach for Deriving Acceptable Human Intake Limits and Human Health Risks from Toxicological Studies: General Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 787-798, December.
    2. Kenny S. Crump, 1995. "Calculation of Benchmark Doses from Continuous Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 79-89, February.
    3. R. Webster West & Ralph L. Kodell, 1999. "A Comparison of Methods of Benchmark‐Dose Estimation for Continuous Response Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 453-459, June.
    4. Robert J. Kavlock & Judith E. Schmid & R. Woodrow Setzer, 1996. "A Simulation Study of the Influence of Study Design on the Estimation of Benchmark Doses for Developmental Toxicity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 399-410, June.
    5. J. G. Liao, 2002. "A type of restricted maximum likelihood estimator of variance components in generalised linear mixed models," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 89(2), pages 401-409, June.
    6. Ralph L. Kodell & Ronnie W. West, 1993. "Upper Confidence Limits on Excess Risk for Quantitative Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 177-182, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew W. Wheeler & A. John Bailer & Tarah Cole & Robert M. Park & Kan Shao, 2017. "Bayesian Quantile Impairment Threshold Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Endpoints," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2107-2118, November.
    2. Walter W. Piegorsch & Susan L. Cutter & Frank Hardisty, 2007. "Benchmark Analysis for Quantifying Urban Vulnerability to Terrorist Incidents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1411-1425, December.
    3. Kan Shao & Jeffrey S. Gift, 2014. "Model Uncertainty and Bayesian Model Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 101-120, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kan Shao & Jeffrey S. Gift, 2014. "Model Uncertainty and Bayesian Model Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 101-120, January.
    2. Mirjam Moerbeek & Aldert H. Piersma & Wout Slob, 2004. "A Comparison of Three Methods for Calculating Confidence Intervals for the Benchmark Dose," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 31-40, February.
    3. Yasushi Suwazono & Kouichi Sakata & Mitsuhiro Oishi & Yasushi Okubo & Mirei Dochi & Etsuko Kobayashi & Teruhiko Kido & Koji Nogawa, 2007. "Estimation of Benchmark Dose as the Threshold Amount of Alcohol Consumption for Blood Pressure in Japanese Workers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1487-1495, December.
    4. Signe M. Jensen & Felix M. Kluxen & Christian Ritz, 2019. "A Review of Recent Advances in Benchmark Dose Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2295-2315, October.
    5. Mehdi Razzaghi & Ralph L. Kodell, 2000. "Risk Assessment for Quantitative Responses Using a Mixture Model," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 519-527, June.
    6. Walter W. Piegorsch, 2010. "Translational benchmark risk analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 653-667, July.
    7. Kristi Kuljus & Dietrich Von Rosen & Salomon Sand & Katarina Victorin, 2006. "Comparing Experimental Designs for Benchmark Dose Calculations for Continuous Endpoints," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1031-1043, August.
    8. Matteo Goldoni & Maria Vittoria Vettori & Rossella Alinovi & Andrea Caglieri & Sandra Ceccatelli & Antonio Mutti, 2003. "Models of Neurotoxicity: Extrapolation of Benchmark Doses in Vitro," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 505-514, June.
    9. Esben Budtz-Jørgensen & Niels Keiding & Philippe Grandjean, 2001. "Benchmark Dose Calculation from Epidemiological Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 698-706, September.
    10. Meredith M. Regan & Paul J. Catalano, 1999. "Likelihood Models for Clustered Binary and Continuous Out comes: Application to Developmental Toxicology," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 760-768, September.
    11. Mehdi Razzaghi & Ralph Kodell, 2004. "Quantitative Risk Assessment for Developmental Neurotoxic Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1673-1681, December.
    12. Tao, Jian & Shi, Ning-Zhong & Lee, S.-Y.Sik-Yum, 2004. "Drug risk assessment with determining the number of sub-populations under finite mixture normal models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 661-676, July.
    13. Liu, Rui-Yin & Tao, Jian & Shi, Ning-Zhong & He, Xuming, 2011. "Bayesian analysis of the patterns of biological susceptibility via reversible jump MCMC sampling," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 1498-1508, March.
    14. Mirjana Glisovic‐Bensa & Walter W. Piegorsch & Edward J. Bedrick, 2024. "Bayesian benchmark dose risk assessment with mixed‐factor quantal data," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(5), August.
    15. Wouter Fransman & Harrie Buist & Eelco Kuijpers & Tobias Walser & David Meyer & Esther Zondervan‐van den Beuken & Joost Westerhout & Rinke H. Klein Entink & Derk H. Brouwer, 2017. "Comparative Human Health Impact Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1358-1374, July.
    16. Keiko Kubo & Kazuhiro Nogawa & Teruhiko Kido & Muneko Nishijo & Hideaki Nakagawa & Yasushi Suwazono, 2017. "Estimation of Benchmark Dose of Lifetime Cadmium Intake for Adverse Renal Effects Using Hybrid Approach in Inhabitants of an Environmentally Exposed River Basin in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 20-26, January.
    17. David W. Gaylor & William Slikker, 2004. "Role of the Standard Deviation in the Estimation of Benchmark Doses with Continuous Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1683-1687, December.
    18. Harvey J. Clewell & Gregory A. Lawrence & Donald B. Calne & Kenny S. Crump, 2003. "Determination of an Occupational Exposure Guideline for Manganese Using the Benchmark Method," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 1031-1046, October.
    19. Jingyu Liu & Walter W. Piegorsch & A. Grant Schissler & Susan L. Cutter, 2018. "Autologistic models for benchmark risk or vulnerability assessment of urban terrorism outcomes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(3), pages 803-823, June.
    20. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2005. "Risk Analysis for Environmental Health Triage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1085-1095, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:5:p:1059-1068. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.