IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i4p1031-1043.html

Comparing Experimental Designs for Benchmark Dose Calculations for Continuous Endpoints

Author

Listed:
  • Kristi Kuljus
  • Dietrich Von Rosen
  • Salomon Sand
  • Katarina Victorin

Abstract

The BMD (benchmark dose) method that is used in risk assessment of chemical compounds was introduced by Crump (1984) and is based on dose‐response modeling. To take uncertainty in the data and model fitting into account, the lower confidence bound of the BMD estimate (BMDL) is suggested to be used as a point of departure in health risk assessments. In this article, we study how to design optimum experiments for applying the BMD method for continuous data. We exemplify our approach by considering the class of Hill models. The main aim is to study whether an increased number of dose groups and at the same time a decreased number of animals in each dose group improves conditions for estimating the benchmark dose. Since Hill models are nonlinear, the optimum design depends on the values of the unknown parameters. That is why we consider Bayesian designs and assume that the parameter vector has a prior distribution. A natural design criterion is to minimize the expected variance of the BMD estimator. We present an example where we calculate the value of the design criterion for several designs and try to find out how the number of dose groups, the number of animals in the dose groups, and the choice of doses affects this value for different Hill curves. It follows from our calculations that to avoid the risk of unfavorable dose placements, it is good to use designs with more than four dose groups. We can also conclude that any additional information about the expected dose‐response curve, e.g., information obtained from studies made in the past, should be taken into account when planning a study because it can improve the design.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:1031-1043
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00798.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00798.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00798.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. 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.
    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. Fereshteh Kalantari & Joakim Ringblom & Salomon Sand & Mattias Öberg, 2017. "Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Distress for Quantal Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(9), pages 1716-1728, September.
    2. Elena Coburg & Marlene Wedler & Jose M. Muino & Christopher Wolff & Nils Körber & Sebastian Dunst & Shu Liu, 2025. "Cell Painting PLUS: expanding the multiplexing capacity of Cell Painting-based phenotypic profiling using iterative staining-elution cycles," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, December.
    3. Joakim Ringblom & Fereshteh Kalantari & Gunnar Johanson & Mattias Öberg, 2018. "Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Welfare for Continuous Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(6), pages 1143-1153, June.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2005. "Risk Analysis for Environmental Health Triage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1085-1095, October.
    12. Paul S. Price & Heli M. Hollnagel & Jack M. Zabik, 2009. "Characterizing the Noncancer Toxicity of Mixtures Using Concepts from the TTC and Quantitative Models of Uncertainty in Mixture Toxicity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1534-1548, November.
    13. Matthew W. Wheeler & Jose Cortiñas Abrahantes & Marc Aerts & Jeffery S. Gift & Jerry Allen Davis, 2022. "Continuous model averaging for benchmark dose analysis: Averaging over distributional forms," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), August.
    14. Alfred K. Mbah & Ibrahim Hamisu & Eknath Naik & Hamisu M. Salihu, 2014. "Estimating Benchmark Exposure for Air Particulate Matter Using Latent Class Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 2053-2062, November.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Roland C. Deutsch & Walter W. Piegorsch, 2012. "Benchmark Dose Profiles for Joint-Action Quantal Data in Quantitative Risk Assessment," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1313-1322, December.
    18. Dette, Holger & Pepelyshev, Andrey & Shpilev, Piter & Wong, Weng Kee, 2009. "Optimal designs for estimating critical effective dose under model uncertainty in a dose response study," Technical Reports 2009,07, Technische Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475: Komplexitätsreduktion in multivariaten Datenstrukturen.
    19. 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.
    20. Hae Dong Woo & Weihsueh A Chiu & Seongil Jo & Jeongseon Kim, 2015. "Benchmark Dose for Urinary Cadmium based on a Marker of Renal Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.

    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:26:y:2006:i:4:p:1031-1043. 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.