Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: Developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints

Sand, Salomon; Rosen, Dietrich von; Victorin, Katarina; Filipsson, Agneta Falk

doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2006.06.294

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the BMD concept was quite straightforwardly introduced for quantal data its application to continuous dose-response information has merited more discussion (Barnes et al, 1995;Kavlock et al, 1995;Gaylor et al, 1998;Crump, 2002;Slob, 2002;Gaylor and Aylward, 2004;Sand et al, 2003Sand et al, , 2004Sand et al, , 2006. In contrast to quantal data where experimental animals are categorized as responders or nonresponders, for continuous data the degree of response is observed in the individual subject.…”

Section: Detailed Review Of the Benchmark Dose Methods Data Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatives to such formulations have also been developed where the BMD is estimated from the mean response function (Crump, 1984;Murrell et al, 1998;Slob and Pieters, 1998;Sand et al, 2006). An example of the latter approach to apply the BMD concept to continuous data is illustrated in Figure 2.…”

Section: Detailed Review Of the Benchmark Dose Methods Data Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The polynomial model and the power model have typically been used in previous applications of modeling continuous endpoints (Crump, 1984;Allen et al, 1994aAllen et al, , 1996Allen et al, , and 1998Kavlock et al, 1995;Barton and Das, 1996;Haber et al, 1998;Gephart et al, 2001;Crump, 1995Crump, , 2002. Table 2 also includes the Hill function which has received attention in more recent applications relating to the risk assessment of chemicals and BMD analysis (Barton et al, 1998;Murrell et al, 1998;Zhou et al, 2001Zhou et al, , 2002Kim et al, 2002;Gaylor and Aylward, 2004;Sand et al, 2004Sand et al, , 2006Toyoshiba et al, 2004;USEPA, 2007). In addition, an exponential model is also given in Table 2.…”

Section: Dose-response Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Murrell et al (1998) response definition has been employed, for example, when calculating BMDs for TCDD based on biochemical responses (Kim et al, 2002). Recently, Sand et al (2006) discussed that the BMD may be defined as the dose where the slope of the Sshaped dose-response curve changes the most per unit log-dose ( Figure 5). This corresponds to a 'change-point' on the dose-response curve in the low-dose region where the curvature is the highest.…”

Section: Non-probability Based Interpretation Of the Bmdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to mechanisms of toxicity the importance of dose regions where a substantial change in response occurs (denoted transition dose regions) have been highlighted and it has been discussed that a dose within a transition region may be used as a replacement for the NOAEL or BMD (Slikker et al, 2004a(Slikker et al, , 2004b. Sand et al (2006) discussed from a mathematical point of view how a dose within such a dose region might be defined and estimated. It was also discussed in an indirect sense, under the Murrell et al (1998) definition, what response the 'change point' corresponds to.…”

Section: Non-probability Based Interpretation Of the Bmdmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment

Sand

Victorin

Filipsson

2007

J of Applied Toxicology

Self Cite

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review deals with the current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose (BMD) concept in health risk assessment of chemicals. The BMD method is an alternative to the traditional no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and has been presented as a methodological improvement in the field of risk assessment. The BMD method has mostly been employed in the USA but is presently given higher attention also in Europe. The review presents a number of arguments in favor of the BMD, relative to the NOAEL. In addition, it gives a detailed overview of the several procedures that have been suggested and applied for BMD analysis, for quantal as well as continuous data. For quantal data the BMD is generally defined as corresponding to an additional or extra risk of 5% or 10%. For continuous endpoints it is suggested that the BMD is defined as corresponding to a percentage change in response relative to background or relative to the dynamic range of response. Under such definitions, a 5% or 10% change can be considered as default. Besides how to define the BMD and its lower bound, the BMDL, the question of how to select the dose-response model to be used in the BMD and BMDL determination is highlighted. Issues of study design and comparison of dose-response curves and BMDs are also covered.

show abstract

Section: Detailed Review Of the Benchmark Dose Methods Data Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Detailed Review Of the Benchmark Dose Methods Data Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dose-response Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Non-probability Based Interpretation Of the Bmdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Non-probability Based Interpretation Of the Bmdmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment

Sand

Victorin

Filipsson

2007

J of Applied Toxicology

Self Cite

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Toward a unified approach to dose–response modeling in ecotoxicology

Ritz

2009

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

274

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reviews dose-response models that are used in ecotoxicology. The focus lies on clarification of differences and similarities between models, and as a side effect, their different guises in ecotoxicology are unravelled. A look at frequently used dose-response models reveals major discrepancies, among other things in naming conventions. Therefore, there is a need for a unified view on dose-response modeling in order to improve the understanding of it and to facilitate communication and comparison of findings across studies, thus realizing its full potential. This study attempts to establish a general framework that encompasses most dose-response models that are of interest to ecotoxicologists in practice. The framework includes commonly used models such as the log-logistic and Weibull models, but also features entire suites of models as found in various guidance documents. An outline on how the proposed framework can be implemented in statistical software systems is also provided.

show abstract

Using benchmark dose modeling for the quantitative risk assessment: Carbon nanotubes, asbestos, glyphosate

Korchevskiy¹

2020

J of Applied Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benchmark dose method is one of the most famous quantitative approaches available for toxicological risks prediction. However, it is not fully clear how occupational health professionals can use it for specific workplace scenarios requiring carcinogen risk assessment. The paper explores the hypothesis that benchmark dose method allows to effectively approximate dose-response data on carcinogenic response, providing reasonable estimations of risks in the situations when a choice between more complex models is not warranted for practical purposes. Three case studies were analyzed for the agents with different levels of scientific confidence in human carcinogenicity: carbon nanotubes, amosite asbestos, and glyphosate. For each agent, a critical study was determined, and a dose-response slope factor was quantified, based on the weighted average lower bound benchmark dose. The linear slope factors of 0.111 lifetime excess cases of lung carcinoma per mg/m 3 of MWCNT-7 (in rats exposure equivalent), 0.009 cases of mesothelioma per f/cc-years of cumulative exposure to amosite asbestos, and 0.000094 cases of malignant lymphoma per mg/kg/day of glyphosate (in mice equivalent) were determined. The correlations between the proposed linear predictive models and observed data points were R = 0.96 (R 2 = 0.92) for carbon nanotubes, R = 0.97 (R 2 = 0.95) for amosite asbestos, and R = 0.89 (R 2 = 0.79) for glyphosate. In all three cases, the linear extrapolation yielded comparable level of risk estimations with the "best fit" nonlinear model; for nanoparticles and amosite asbestos, linear estimations were more conservative. By performing a simulation study, it was demonstrated that a weighted average benchmark dose expressed the highest correlation with multistage and quantal-linear models.

show abstract

Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: Developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints

Cited by 8 publications

References 41 publications

The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment

The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment

Toward a unified approach to dose–response modeling in ecotoxicology

Using benchmark dose modeling for the quantitative risk assessment: Carbon nanotubes, asbestos, glyphosate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About