Expert judgement and lethal toxicity of inhaled chemicals

Goossens, Louis; Cooke, Roger M.; Woudenberg, Fred; Torn, Pieter van der

doi:10.1080/136698798377222

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Starting from protocols described previously, ( 4 , 5 , 13 , 16 ) a protocol was designed for a formal expert judgment process in a broad and/or multidisciplinary field of interest using a heterogeneous expert panel consisting of the following steps:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It aims at constructing a weighted combination of experts' probability assessments for each variable estimated. ( 2 , 4 –6 , 13 ) Experts can be weighted equally, or according to their (relative) expertise, typically indicated by their performance on seed variables.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In such cases, expert judgment is the only way to complete the required knowledge. ( 1 , 2 ) Expert data obtained under rigorous methodological rules are increasingly being recognized as a valuable asset in numerous scientific fields ( 3–5 ) , including chemistry, nuclear sciences, seismic, and civil applications. ( 5–10 )…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Elicitation of Quantitative Data from a Heterogeneous Expert Panel: Formal Process and Application in Animal Health

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a protocol for a formal expert judgment process using a heterogeneous expert panel aimed at the quantification of continuous variables. The emphasis is on the process's requirements related to the nature of expertise within the panel, in particular the heterogeneity of both substantive and normative expertise. The process provides the opportunity for interaction among the experts so that they fully understand and agree upon the problem at hand, including qualitative aspects relevant to the variables of interest, prior to the actual quantification task. Individual experts' assessments on the variables of interest, cast in the form of subjective probability density functions, are elicited with a minimal demand for normative expertise. The individual experts' assessments are aggregated into a single probability density function per variable, thereby weighting the experts according to their expertise. Elicitation techniques proposed include the Delphi technique for the qualitative assessment task and the ELI method for the actual quantitative assessment task. Appropriately, the Classical model was used to weight the experts' assessments in order to construct a single distribution per variable. Applying this model, the experts' quality typically was based on their performance on seed variables. An application of the proposed protocol in the broad and multidisciplinary field of animal health is presented. Results of this expert judgment process showed that the proposed protocol in combination with the proposed elicitation and analysis techniques resulted in valid data on the (continuous) variables of interest. In conclusion, the proposed protocol for a formal expert judgment process aimed at the elicitation of quantitative data from a heterogeneous expert panel provided satisfactory results. Hence, this protocol might be useful for expert judgment studies in other broad and/or multidisciplinary fields of interest.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Elicitation of Quantitative Data from a Heterogeneous Expert Panel: Formal Process and Application in Animal Health

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Dutch government, for example, stipulated a dose‐response relation for ammonia under the above conditions as the probit function: where Φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function, r is the probability of death, C is the concentration in ppm, and t is the exposure time in minutes. ( 13,14,15 ) (See Finney ( 16 ) for the basis of why dose‐response functions are often expressed in this form. )…”

Section: Four‐step Approach and Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating Under Uncertainty: Newsboy for Exposure Limits

Cooke

MacDonell

2008

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Setting action levels or limits for health protection is complicated by uncertainty in the dose-response relation across a range of hazards and exposures. To address this issue, we consider the classic newsboy problem. The principles used to manage uncertainty for that case are applied to two stylized exposure examples, one for high dose and high dose rate radiation and the other for ammonia. Both incorporate expert judgment on uncertainty quantification in the dose-response relationship. The mathematical technique of probabilistic inversion also plays a key role. We propose a coupled approach, whereby scientists quantify the dose-response uncertainty using techniques such as structured expert judgment with performance weights and probabilistic inversion, and stakeholders quantify associated loss rates.

show abstract

“…9. In passing we note that levels of uncertainty are not expected to decrease significantly in the short and medium term, ever-increasing computational resources notwithstanding (Maslin and Austin 2012;Knutti and Sedlacek 2013). Housing, Physical Planning and Environment of the Netherlands sponsored a study to help answer this question for a handful of common industrial chemicals, including chlorine, ammonia, and hydrogen chloride (Goossens et al 1998).…”

Section: Lateral Knowledge Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert Judgment for Climate Change Adaptation

Thompson¹,

Frigg²,

Helgeson

2016

Philos. of Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change adaptation is largely a local matter, and adaptation planning can benefit from local climate change projections. Such projections are typically generated by accepting climate model outputs in a relatively uncritical way. We argue, based on the IPCC's treatment of model outputs from the CMIP5 ensemble, that this approach is unwarranted and that subjective expert judgment should play a central role in the provision of local climate change projections intended to support decision-making.

show abstract

Expert judgement and lethal toxicity of inhaled chemicals

Cited by 15 publications

References 2 publications

Elicitation of Quantitative Data from a Heterogeneous Expert Panel: Formal Process and Application in Animal Health

Elicitation of Quantitative Data from a Heterogeneous Expert Panel: Formal Process and Application in Animal Health

Regulating Under Uncertainty: Newsboy for Exposure Limits

Expert Judgment for Climate Change Adaptation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About