IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i1p161-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk/Benefit Assessments of Human Diseases: Optimum Dose for Intervention

Author

Listed:
  • David W. Gaylor

Abstract

A simple procedure is proposed in order to quantify the tradeoff between a loss suffered from an illness due to exposure to a microbial pathogen and a loss due to a toxic effect, perhaps a different illness, induced by a disinfectant employed to reduce the microbial exposure. Estimates of these two types of risk as a function of disinfectant dose and their associated relative losses provide information for the estimation of the optimum dose of disinfectant that minimizes the total expected loss. The estimates of the optimum dose and expected relative total loss were similar regardless of whether the beta‐Poisson, log‐logistic, or extreme value function was used to model the risk of illness due to exposure to a microbial pathogen. This is because the optimum dose of the disinfectant and resultant expected minimum loss depend upon the estimated slope (first derivative) of the models at low levels of risk, which appear to be similar for these three models at low levels of risk. Similarly, the choice among these three models does not appear critical for estimating the slope at low levels of risk for the toxic effect induced by the use of a disinfectant. For the proposed procedure to estimate the optimum disinfectant dose, it is not necessary to have absolute values for the losses due to microbial‐induced or disinfectant‐induced illness, but only relative losses are required. All aspects of the problem are amenable to sensitivity analyses. The issue of risk/benefit tradeoffs, more appropriately called risk/risk tradeoffs, does not appear to be an insurmountable problem.

Suggested Citation

  • David W. Gaylor, 2005. "Risk/Benefit Assessments of Human Diseases: Optimum Dose for Intervention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 161-168, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:1:p:161-168
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00575.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00575.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00575.x?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. Harry M. Marks & Margaret E. Coleman & C.‐T. Jordan Lin & Tanya Roberts, 1998. "Topics in Microbial Risk Assessment: Dynamic Flow Tree Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 309-328, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. H. Christopher Frey & Sumeet R. Patil, 2002. "Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 553-578, June.
    2. Charles N. Haas, 2002. "Conditional Dose‐Response Relationships for Microorganisms: Development and Application," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 455-463, June.
    3. Margaret E. Coleman & Sonja Sandberg & Steven A. Anderson, 2003. "Impact of Microbial Ecology of Meat and Poultry Products on Predictions from Exposure Assessment Scenarios for Refrigerated Storage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 215-228, February.
    4. Louis A. Cox & Douglas A. Popken, 2004. "Quantifying Human Health Risks from Virginiamycin Used in Chickens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 271-288, February.
    5. Rowena D. Kosmider & Pádraig Nally & Robin R. L. Simons & Adam Brouwer & Susan Cheung & Emma L. Snary & Marion Wooldridge, 2010. "Attribution of Human VTEC O157 Infection from Meat Products: A Quantitative Risk Assessment Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 753-765, May.
    6. Hojin Moon & Hyun‐Joo Kim & James J. Chen & Ralph L. Kodell, 2005. "Model Averaging Using the Kullback Information Criterion in Estimating Effective Doses for Microbial Infection and Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1147-1159, October.
    7. Starke, Yolanda & Ralston, Katherine L. & Brent, C. Philip & Riggins, Toija & Lin, Chung-Tung Jordan, 2002. "Consumer Food Safety Behavior: A Case Study In Hamburger Cooking And Ordering," Agricultural Economic Reports 34061, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Hojin Moon & Steven B. Kim & James J. Chen & Nysia I. George & Ralph L. Kodell, 2013. "Model Uncertainty and Model Averaging in the Estimation of Infectious Doses for Microbial Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 220-231, February.
    9. Peter F. M. Teunis & Nico J. D. Nagelkerke & Charles N. Haas, 1999. "Dose Response Models For Infectious Gastroenteritis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1251-1260, December.
    10. Harriet Namata & Marc Aerts & Christel Faes & Peter Teunis, 2008. "Model Averaging in Microbial Risk Assessment Using Fractional Polynomials," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 891-905, August.
    11. David L. Holcomb & Mary A. Smith & Glenn O. Ware & Yen‐Con Hung & Robert E. Brackett & Michael P. Doyle, 1999. "Comparison of Six Dose‐Response Models for Use with Food‐Borne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1091-1100, December.
    12. Starbird, S. Andrew, 2000. "Designing Food Safety Regulations: The Effect Of Inspection Policy And Penalties For Noncompliance On Food Processor Behavior," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Raymond A. Zilinskas & Bruce Hope & D. Warner North, 2004. "A Discussion of Findings and Their Possible Implications from a Workshop on Bioterrorism Threat Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 901-908, August.
    14. Mark R. Powell, 2013. "The Economic Efficiency of Sampling Size: The Case of Beef Trim Revisited," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 385-396, March.
    15. Vincent Tesson & Michel Federighi & Enda Cummins & Juliana de Oliveira Mota & Sandrine Guillou & Géraldine Boué, 2020. "A Systematic Review of Beef Meat Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment Models," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-28, January.

    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:25:y:2005:i:1:p:161-168. 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.