Quantifying Uncertainty in a Risk Assessment Using Human Data

Abstract

A call for risk assessment approaches that better characterize and quantify uncertainty has been made by the scientific and regulatory community. This paper responds to that call by demonstrating a distributional approach that draws upon human data to derive potency estimates and to identify and quantify important sources of uncertainty. The approach is rooted in the science of decision analysis and employs an influence diagram, a decision tree, probabilistic weights, and a distribution of point estimates of carcinogenic potency. Its results estimate the likelihood of different carcinogenic risks (potencies) for a chemical under a specific scenario. For this exercise, human data on formaldehyde were employed to demonstrate the approach. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the relative impact of specific levels and alternatives on the potency distribution. The resulting potency estimates are compared with the results of an exercise using animal data on formaldehyde. The paper demonstrates that distributional risk assessment is readily adapted to situations in which epidemiologic data serve as the basis for potency estimates. Strengths and weaknesses of the distributional approach are discussed. Areas for further application and research are recommended.

The whence, wherefore and whither of the new scientific discipline of environmental inquiry: Exposure Analysis The 2002 Wesolowski Lecture

“…Are we estimating the correct uncertainty magnitude when we estimate only parameter uncertainty? I believe we are not (Fayerweather et al, 1999;Hertwich et al, 2000;Moschandreas and Karuchit, 2002).…”

A configural model of expert judgement as a preliminary epidemiological study of injury problems: An application to drowning

“…Expert judgement provides a recognised method for gathering evidence where traditional scientific methods are impractical [7-8], such as assigning risk probabilities to assess certain environmental hazards [9-10]. Such risk assessments may be biased by judge overconfidence, inaccuracy, or insufficient or irrelevant judge expertise [11-12].…”

Combining the cost of reducing uncertainty with the selection of risk assessment models for remediation decision of site contamination

“…Then, model uncertainty can be obtained from the range of the final distributional results of each alternative model. This method was used to implement uncertainty analysis by replacing different model structures, assumptions, or scenarios, thereby providing insight into model uncertainty [14,24,25].…”