×

Benchmark dose calculation from epidemiological data. (English) Zbl 1209.62262

Summary: A threshold for dose-dependent toxicity is crucial for standards setting but may not be possible to specify from empirical studies. Crump (1984) instead proposed calculating the lower statistical confidence bound of the benchmark dose, which he defined as the dose that causes a small excess risk. This concept has several advantages and has been adopted by regulatory agencies for establishing safe exposure limits for toxic substances such as mercury. We have examined the validity of this method as applied to an epidemiological study of continuous response data associated with mercury exposure. For models that are linear in the parameters, we derived an approximative expression for the lower confidence bound of the benchmark dose. We find that the benchmark calculations are highly dependent on the choice of the dose-effect function and the definition of the benchmark dose. We therefore recommend that several sets of biologically relevant default settings be used to illustrate the effect on the benchmark results and to stimulate research that will guide an a priori choice of proper default settings.

MSC:

62P10 Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis
92C60 Medical epidemiology
62J05 Linear regression; mixed models
92D30 Epidemiology
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Alho, Interval estimation of inverse dose-response, Biometrics 51 pp 491– (1995) · Zbl 0825.62823 · doi:10.2307/2532937
[2] Allen, Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity. II. Comparison of generic benchmark dose estimates with no observed effect levels, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 23 pp 487– (1994) · doi:10.1006/faat.1994.1133
[3] Bailer, Estimating benchmark concentrations and other noncancer endpoints in epidemiology studies, Risk Analysis 17 pp 771– (1997) · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01282.x
[4] Crump, A new method for determining allowable daily intakes, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 4 pp 854– (1984) · doi:10.1016/0272-0590(84)90107-6
[5] Crump, Calculations of benchmark doses from continuous data, Risk Analysis 15 pp 79– (1995) · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00095.x
[6] Crump, Reanalysis of dose-response data from the Iraqi methylmercury poisoning episode, Risk Analysis 15 pp 523– (1995) · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00345.x
[7] Crump, Influence of prenatal mercury exposure upon scholastic and psychological test performance: Benchmark analysis of a New Zealand cohort, Risk Analysis 18 pp 701– (1998) · doi:10.1023/B:RIAN.0000005917.52151.e6
[8] Crump, Benchmark concentrations for methylmercury obtained from the Seychelles Child Development Study, Environmental Health Perspectives 108 pp 257– (2000) · doi:10.1289/ehp.00108257
[9] Efron, An Introduction to the Bootstrap (1993) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9
[10] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mercury Study Report to Congress (1997)
[11] Grandjean, Mercury risks: Controversy or just uncertainty, Public Health Reports 114 pp 512– (1999) · doi:10.1093/phr/114.6.512
[12] Grandjean, Cognitive deficit in 7-year-old children with prenatal exposure to methylmercury, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 19 pp 417– (1997) · doi:10.1016/S0892-0362(97)00097-4
[13] Johnson, Applications of the noncentral t-distribution, Biometrika 31 pp 362– (1939) · Zbl 0023.14801 · doi:10.1093/biomet/31.3-4.362
[14] Kodell, Upper confidence limits on excess risk for quantitative responses, Risk Analysis 13 pp 177– (1993) · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01067.x
[15] National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000)
[16] Royston, Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: Parsimonious parametric modelling, Applied Statistics 43 pp 429– (1994) · Zbl 04519855 · doi:10.2307/2986270
[17] World Health Organization (WHO), Assessing Human Health Risks of Chemicals: Derivation of Guidance Values for Health-Based Exposure Limits. Environmental Health Criteria 170 (1994)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.