Literature DB >> 22740780

Changing the Risk Paradigms Can be Good for Our Health: J-Shaped, Linear and Threshold Dose-Response Models.

P F Ricci1, S R Straja, A L Cox.   

Abstract

Both the linear (at low doses)-no-threshold (LNT) and the threshold models (S-shapes) dose-response lead to no benefit from low exposure. We propose three new models that allow and include, but do not require - unlike LNT and S-shaped models - this strong assumption. We also provide the means to calculate benefits associated with bi-phasic biological behaviors, when they occur and propose:THREE HORMETIC (PHASIC) MODELS: the J-shaped, inverse J-shaped, the min-max, andMethod for calculating the direct benefits associated with the J and inverse J-shaped models.The J-shaped and min-max models for mutagens and carcinogenic agents include an experimentally justified repair stage for toxic and carcinogenic damage. We link these to stochastic transition models for cancer and show how abrupt transitions in cancer hazard rates, as functions of exposure concentrations and durations, can emerge naturally in large cell populations even when the rates of cell-level events increase smoothly (e.g., proportionally) with concentration. In this very general family of models, J-shaped dose-response curves emerge. These results are universal, i.e., independent of specific biological details represented by the stochastic transition networks. Thus, using them suggests a more complete and realistic way to assess risks at low doses or dose-rates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biphasic models; cancer; linear-no-threshold (LNT); risk analysis; toxic agents

Year:  2011        PMID: 22740780      PMCID: PMC3375485          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.11-020.Ricci

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dose Response        ISSN: 1559-3258            Impact factor:   2.658


  22 in total

1.  Comment on "On the discrepancies between epidemiologic studies of lung cancer and residential radon and Cohen's ecologic regression".

Authors:  S R Straja; A A Moghissi
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.316

2.  The influence of dose and dose rate on the incidence of neoplastic disease in RFM mice after neutron irradiation.

Authors:  R L Ullrich; M C Jernigan; G E Cosgrove; L C Satterfield; N D Bowles; J B Storer
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1976-10       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 3.  Arsenic, mode of action at biologically plausible low doses: what are the implications for low dose cancer risk?

Authors:  Elizabeth T Snow; Peter Sykora; Troy R Durham; Catherine B Klein
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2005-09-01       Impact factor: 4.219

4.  Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors.

Authors:  M L Dourson; J F Stara
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 3.271

5.  Adaptive response of human lymphocytes to low concentrations of radioactive thymidine.

Authors:  G Olivieri; J Bodycote; S Wolff
Journal:  Science       Date:  1984-02-10       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Effect of low-dose acute X-irradiation on the frequencies of chromosomal aberrations in human peripheral lymphocytes in vitro.

Authors:  J Pohl-Rüling; P Fischer; O Haas; G Obe; A T Natarajan; P P van Buul; K E Buckton; N O Bianchi; M Larramendy; M Kucerová; Z Poliková; A Leonard; L Fabry; F Palitti; T Sharma; W Binder; R N Mukherjee; U Mukherjee
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1983 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 2.433

7.  Arsenic in drinking water and bladder cancer mortality in the United States: an analysis based on 133 U.S. counties and 30 years of observation.

Authors:  Steven H Lamm; Arnold Engel; Michael B Kruse; Manning Feinleib; Daniel M Byrd; Shenghan Lai; Richard Wilson
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.162

8.  Promethazine both facilitates and inhibits nociception in rats: effect of the testing procedure.

Authors:  G H Paalzow; L K Paalzow
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 4.530

9.  Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-11-10       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examinations in patients being treated for tuberculosis.

Authors:  A B Miller; G R Howe; G J Sherman; J P Lindsay; M J Yaffe; P J Dinner; H A Risch; D L Preston
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1989-11-09       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  3 in total

1.  Modeling Dose-response at Low Dose: A Systems Biology Approach for Ionization Radiation.

Authors:  Yuchao Zhao; Paolo F Ricci
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 2.658

2.  Increased Serum Angiopoietin-Like 6 Ahead of Metabolic Syndrome in a Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Jun Namkung; Joon Hyung Sohn; Jae Seung Chang; Sang Wook Park; Jang Young Kim; Sang Baek Koh; In Deok Kong; Kyu Sang Park
Journal:  Diabetes Metab J       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 5.376

3.  Endocrine Disruptors: Improving Regulatory Science Policy.

Authors:  Paolo F Ricci
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 2.658

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.