Literature DB >> 25496314

The two-dimensional Monte Carlo: a new methodologic paradigm for dose reconstruction for epidemiological studies.

Steven L Simon1, F Owen Hoffman, Eduard Hofer.   

Abstract

Retrospective dose estimation, particularly dose reconstruction that supports epidemiological investigations of health risk, relies on various strategies that include models of physical processes and exposure conditions with detail ranging from simple to complex. Quantification of dose uncertainty is an essential component of assessments for health risk studies since, as is well understood, it is impossible to retrospectively determine the true dose for each person. To address uncertainty in dose estimation, numerical simulation tools have become commonplace and there is now an increased understanding about the needs and what is required for models used to estimate cohort doses (in the absence of direct measurement) to evaluate dose response. It now appears that for dose-response algorithms to derive the best, unbiased estimate of health risk, we need to understand the type, magnitude and interrelationships of the uncertainties of model assumptions, parameters and input data used in the associated dose estimation models. Heretofore, uncertainty analysis of dose estimates did not always properly distinguish between categories of errors, e.g., uncertainty that is specific to each subject (i.e., unshared error), and uncertainty of doses from a lack of understanding and knowledge about parameter values that are shared to varying degrees by numbers of subsets of the cohort. While mathematical propagation of errors by Monte Carlo simulation methods has been used for years to estimate the uncertainty of an individual subject's dose, it was almost always conducted without consideration of dependencies between subjects. In retrospect, these types of simple analyses are not suitable for studies with complex dose models, particularly when important input data are missing or otherwise not available. The dose estimation strategy presented here is a simulation method that corrects the previous deficiencies of analytical or simple Monte Carlo error propagation methods and is termed, due to its capability to maintain separation between shared and unshared errors, the two-dimensional Monte Carlo (2DMC) procedure. Simply put, the 2DMC method simulates alternative, possibly true, sets (or vectors) of doses for an entire cohort rather than a single set that emerges when each individual's dose is estimated independently from other subjects. Moreover, estimated doses within each simulated vector maintain proper inter-relationships such that the estimated doses for members of a cohort subgroup that share common lifestyle attributes and sources of uncertainty are properly correlated. The 2DMC procedure simulates inter-individual variability of possibly true doses within each dose vector and captures the influence of uncertainty in the values of dosimetric parameters across multiple realizations of possibly true vectors of cohort doses. The primary characteristic of the 2DMC approach, as well as its strength, are defined by the proper separation between uncertainties shared by members of the entire cohort or members of defined cohort subsets, and uncertainties that are individual-specific and therefore unshared.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25496314      PMCID: PMC4423557          DOI: 10.1667/RR13729.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  32 in total

1.  Radiation organ doses received in a nationwide cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists: methods and findings.

Authors:  Steven L Simon; Dale L Preston; Martha S Linet; Jeremy S Miller; Alice J Sigurdson; Bruce H Alexander; Deukwoo Kwon; R Craig Yoder; Parveen Bhatti; Mark P Little; Preetha Rajaraman; Dunstana Melo; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Robert M Weinstock; Michele M Doody
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Sensitivity analysis of a two-dimensional probabilistic risk assessment model using analysis of variance.

Authors:  Amirhossein Mokhtari; H Christopher Frey
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.000

3.  Accounting for both random errors and systematic errors in uncertainty propagation analysis of computer models involving experimental measurements with Monte Carlo methods.

Authors:  Victor R Vasquez; Wallace B Whiting
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.000

4.  Dose reconstruction for therapeutic and diagnostic radiation exposures: use in epidemiological studies.

Authors:  Marilyn Stovall; Rita Weathers; Catherine Kasper; Susan A Smith; Lois Travis; Elaine Ron; Ruth Kleinerman
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  Some statistical implications of dose uncertainty in radiation dose-response analyses.

Authors:  Daniel W Schafer; Ethel S Gilbert
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  Uncertainties in individual doses in a case-control study of thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl accident.

Authors:  V Drozdovitch; E Maceika; V Khrouch; I Zvonova; O Vlasov; A Bouville; E Cardis
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2007-07-18       Impact factor: 0.972

7.  Separation of uncertainty and interindividual variability in human exposure modeling.

Authors:  Ad M J Ragas; Femke P E Brouwer; Frederike L Büchner; Harrie W M Hendriks; Mark A J Huijbregts
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2008-04-09       Impact factor: 5.563

Review 8.  Effect of measurement error on epidemiological studies of environmental and occupational exposures.

Authors:  B G Armstrong
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 9.  Exposure measurement error: influence on exposure-disease. Relationships and methods of correction.

Authors:  D Thomas; D Stram; J Dwyer
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 21.981

10.  Development of a method to estimate thyroid dose from fallout radioiodine in a cohort study.

Authors:  S L Simon; R D Lloyd; J E Till; H A Hawthorne; D C Gren; M L Rallison; W Stevens
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 1.316

View more
  19 in total

1.  Fluoroscopy X-Ray Organ-Specific Dosimetry System (FLUXOR) for Estimation of Organ Doses and Their Uncertainties in the Canadian Fluoroscopy Cohort Study.

Authors:  A Iulian Apostoaei; Brian A Thomas; F Owen Hoffman; David C Kocher; Kathleen M Thiessen; David Borrego; Choonsik Lee; Steven L Simon; Lydia B Zablotska
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  ORGAN DOSE ESTIMATION ACCOUNTING FOR UNCERTAINTY FOR PEDIATRIC AND YOUNG ADULT CT SCANS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

Authors:  Choonsik Lee; Neige Journy; Brian E Moroz; Mark Little; Richard Harbron; Kieran McHugh; Mark Pearce; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  Development of a source-exposure matrix for occupational exposure assessment of electromagnetic fields in the INTEROCC study.

Authors:  Javier Vila; Joseph D Bowman; Jordi Figuerola; David Moriña; Laurel Kincl; Lesley Richardson; Elisabeth Cardis
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 5.563

4.  A cautionary comment on the generation of Berkson error in epidemiological studies.

Authors:  Sabine Hoffmann; Chantal Guihenneuc; Sophie Ancelet
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Uncertainties in Radiation Doses for a Case-control Study of Thyroid Cancer Among Persons Exposed in Childhood to 131I from Chernobyl Fallout.

Authors:  Vladimir Drozdovitch; Ausrele Kesminiene; Monika Moissonnier; Ilya Veyalkin; Evgenia Ostroumova
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 1.316

6.  Dose reconstruction for the million worker study: status and guidelines.

Authors:  André Bouville; Richard E Toohey; John D Boice; Harold L Beck; Larry T Dauer; Keith F Eckerman; Derek Hagemeyer; Richard W Leggett; Michael T Mumma; Bruce Napier; Kathy H Pryor; Marvin Rosenstein; David A Schauer; Sami Sherbini; Daniel O Stram; James L Thompson; John E Till; Craig Yoder; Cary Zeitlin
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.316

7.  Tumour size can have an impact on the outcomes of epidemiological studies on second cancers after radiotherapy.

Authors:  Uwe Schneider; Linda Walsh; Wayne Newhauser
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 1.925

8.  Thyroid Dose Estimates for a Cohort of Belarusian Children Exposed to (131)I from the Chernobyl Accident: Assessment of Uncertainties.

Authors:  Vladimir Drozdovitch; Victor Minenko; Ivan Golovanov; Arkady Khrutchinsky; Tatiana Kukhta; Semion Kutsen; Nickolas Luckyanov; Evgenia Ostroumova; Sergey Trofimik; Paul Voillequé; Steven L Simon; André Bouville
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 2.841

9.  Accounting for shared and unshared dosimetric uncertainties in the dose response for ultrasound-detected thyroid nodules after exposure to radioactive fallout.

Authors:  Charles E Land; Deukwoo Kwon; F Owen Hoffman; Brian Moroz; Vladimir Drozdovitch; André Bouville; Harold Beck; Nicholas Luckyanov; Robert M Weinstock; Steven L Simon
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 2.841

10.  Doses for post-Chernobyl epidemiological studies: are they reliable?

Authors:  Vladimir Drozdovitch; Vadim Chumak; Ausrele Kesminiene; Evgenia Ostroumova; André Bouville
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 1.559

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.