Literature DB >> 28555874

Bayesian Quantile Impairment Threshold Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Endpoints.

Matthew W Wheeler1, A John Bailer2, Tarah Cole2,3, Robert M Park1, Kan Shao4.   

Abstract

Quantitative risk assessment often begins with an estimate of the exposure or dose associated with a particular risk level from which exposure levels posing low risk to populations can be extrapolated. For continuous exposures, this value, the benchmark dose, is often defined by a specified increase (or decrease) from the median or mean response at no exposure. This method of calculating the benchmark dose does not take into account the response distribution and, consequently, cannot be interpreted based upon probability statements of the target population. We investigate quantile regression as an alternative to the use of the median or mean regression. By defining the dose-response quantile relationship and an impairment threshold, we specify a benchmark dose as the dose associated with a specified probability that the population will have a response equal to or more extreme than the specified impairment threshold. In addition, in an effort to minimize model uncertainty, we use Bayesian monotonic semiparametric regression to define the exposure-response quantile relationship, which gives the model flexibility to estimate the quantal dose-response function. We describe this methodology and apply it to both epidemiology and toxicology data.
© 2017 Society for Risk Analysis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Animal toxicity studies; monotone smoothing splines; risk assessment; semiparametric modeling

Year:  2017        PMID: 28555874      PMCID: PMC5740488          DOI: 10.1111/risa.12762

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  10 in total

1.  Benchmark dose calculation from epidemiological data.

Authors:  E Budtz-Jørgensen; N Keiding; P Grandjean
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints.

Authors:  Wout Slob
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.849

3.  Benchmark calculations in risk assessment using continuous dose-response information: the influence of variance and the determination of a cut-off value.

Authors:  Salomon J Sand; Dietrich von Rosen; Agneta Falk Filipsson
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.000

4.  An investigation into the relationship between coal workers' pneumoconiosis and dust exposure in U.S. coal miners.

Authors:  M D Attfield; K Morring
Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J       Date:  1992-08

5.  Pulmonary function of U.S. coal miners related to dust exposure estimates.

Authors:  M D Attfield; T K Hodous
Journal:  Am Rev Respir Dis       Date:  1992-03

6.  Role of the standard deviation in the estimation of benchmark doses with continuous data.

Authors:  David W Gaylor; William Slikker
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.000

7.  Model-averaged benchmark concentration estimates for continuous response data arising from epidemiological studies.

Authors:  Robert B Noble; A John Bailer; Robert Park
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 4.000

8.  Spirometric reference values from a sample of the general U.S. population.

Authors:  J L Hankinson; J R Odencrantz; K B Fedan
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 21.405

9.  A new method for determining allowable daily intakes.

Authors:  K S Crump
Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol       Date:  1984-10

10.  Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects.

Authors:  D W Gaylor; W Slikker
Journal:  Neurotoxicology       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.294

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Benchmark dose risk analysis with mixed-factor quantal data in environmental risk assessment.

Authors:  Maria A Sans-Fuentes; Walter W Piegorsch
Journal:  Environmetrics       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 1.527

2.  A Web-Based System for Bayesian Benchmark Dose Estimation.

Authors:  Kan Shao; Andrew J Shapiro
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 9.031

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.