IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i10p1561-1575.html

Potential Uncertainty Reduction in Model‐Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimates Informed by an Additional Dose Study

Author

Listed:
  • Kan Shao
  • Mitchell J. Small

Abstract

A methodology is presented for assessing the information value of an additional dosage experiment in existing bioassay studies. The analysis demonstrates the potential reduction in the uncertainty of toxicity metrics derived from expanded studies, providing insights for future studies. Bayesian methods are used to fit alternative dose‐response models using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation for parameter estimation and Bayesian model averaging (BMA) is used to compare and combine the alternative models. BMA predictions for benchmark dose (BMD) are developed, with uncertainty in these predictions used to derive the lower bound BMDL. The MCMC and BMA results provide a basis for a subsequent Monte Carlo analysis that backcasts the dosage where an additional test group would have been most beneficial in reducing the uncertainty in the BMD prediction, along with the magnitude of the expected uncertainty reduction. Uncertainty reductions are measured in terms of reduced interval widths of predicted BMD values and increases in BMDL values that occur as a result of this reduced uncertainty. The methodology is illustrated using two existing data sets for TCDD carcinogenicity, fitted with two alternative dose‐response models (logistic and quantal‐linear). The example shows that an additional dose at a relatively high value would have been most effective for reducing the uncertainty in BMA BMD estimates, with predicted reductions in the widths of uncertainty intervals of approximately 30%, and expected increases in BMDL values of 5–10%. The results demonstrate that dose selection for studies that subsequently inform dose‐response models can benefit from consideration of how these models will be fit, combined, and interpreted.

Suggested Citation

  • Kan Shao & Mitchell J. Small, 2011. "Potential Uncertainty Reduction in Model‐Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimates Informed by an Additional Dose Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1561-1575, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:10:p:1561-1575
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01595.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01595.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01595.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. Fumie Yokota & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Value of Information Analysis in Environmental Health Risk Management Decisions: Past, Present, and Future," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 635-650, June.
    2. Walter W. Piegorsch & R. Webster West, 2005. "Benchmark Analysis: Shopping with Proper Confidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 913-920, August.
    3. P. J. Brown & M. Vannucci & T. Fearn, 1998. "Multivariate Bayesian variable selection and prediction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(3), pages 627-641.
    4. Maxine E. Dakins & John E. Toll & Mitchell J. Small & Kevin P. Brand, 1996. "Risk‐Based Environmental Remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo Analysis and the Expected Value of Sample Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 67-79, February.
    5. Alison C. Taylor & John S. Evans & Thomas E. McKone, 1993. "The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 403-412, August.
    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. 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.

    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. Mitchell J. Small, 2008. "Methods for Assessing Uncertainty in Fundamental Assumptions and Associated Models for Cancer Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1289-1308, October.
    2. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    3. Fumie Yokota & George Gray & James K. Hammitt & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Tiered Chemical Testing: A Value of Information Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1625-1639, December.
    4. A. E. Ades & G. Lu & K. Claxton, 2004. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 207-227, March.
    5. Fumie Yokota & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Value of Information Literature Analysis: A Review of Applications in Health Risk Management," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 287-298, June.
    6. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    7. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    8. Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti & Luca Pedini, 2020. "ParMA: Parallelised Bayesian Model Averaging for Generalised Linear Models," Working Papers 2020:28, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    9. Nicky Welton & A. E. Ades, 2012. "Research Decisions In The Face Of Heterogeneity: What Can A New Study Tell Us?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(10), pages 1196-1200, October.
    10. Stephan Wachtel & Thomas Otter, 2013. "Successive Sample Selection and Its Relevance for Management Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 170-185, September.
    11. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Bernardi, Mauro & Costola, Michele, 2019. "High-dimensional sparse financial networks through a regularised regression model," SAFE Working Paper Series 244, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    13. Camba-Méndez, Gonzalo & Serwa, Dobromił, 2016. "Market perception of sovereign credit risk in the euro area during the financial crisis," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 168-189.
    14. Wang, Hao, 2010. "Sparse seemingly unrelated regression modelling: Applications in finance and econometrics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 2866-2877, November.
    15. Dimitris Korobilis, 2008. "Forecasting in vector autoregressions with many predictors," Advances in Econometrics, in: Bayesian Econometrics, pages 403-431, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf & Kenneth D. West, 2005. "Model uncertainty and policy evaluation: some theory and empirics," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    17. Njindan Iyke, Bernard, 2015. "Macro Determinants of the Real Exchange Rate in a Small Open Small Island Economy: Evidence from Mauritius via BMA," MPRA Paper 68968, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. John S. Evans, 2016. "Characterizing Uncertainty in Estimates of Mortality Risk from Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(9), pages 1748-1750, September.
    19. Daniel Spencer & Rajarshi Guhaniyogi & Raquel Prado, 2020. "Joint Bayesian Estimation of Voxel Activation and Inter-regional Connectivity in fMRI Experiments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(4), pages 845-869, December.
    20. Luhede, Amelie & Yaqine, Houda & Bahmanbijari, Reza & Römer, Michael & Upmann, Thorsten, 2024. "The value of information in water quality monitoring and management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).

    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:31:y:2011:i:10:p:1561-1575. 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.