An extended and unified modeling framework for benchmark dose estimation for both continuous and binary data.

Marc Aerts, Matthew W Wheeler, Jos�� Corti��as Abrahantes
Author Information
  1. Marc Aerts: Data Science Institute, Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and statistical Bioinformatics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium. ORCID
  2. Matthew W Wheeler: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.
  3. Jos�� Corti��as Abrahantes: European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy.

Abstract

Protection and safety authorities recommend the use of model averaging to determine the benchmark dose approach as a scientifically more advanced method compared with the no-observed-adverse-effect-level approach for obtaining a reference point and deriving health-based guidance values. Model averaging however highly depends on the set of candidate dose-response models and such a set should be rich enough to ensure that a well-fitting model is included. The currently applied set of candidate models for continuous endpoints is typically limited to two models, the exponential and Hill model, and differs completely from the richer set of candidate models currently used for binary endpoints. The objective of this article is to propose a general and wide framework of dose response models, which can be applied both to continuous and binary endpoints and covers the current models for both type of endpoints. In combination with the bootstrap, this framework offers a unified approach to benchmark dose estimation. The methodology is illustrated using two data sets, one with a continuous and another with a binary endpoint.

Keywords

References

  1. Toxicol Sci. 2002 Apr;66(2):226-32 [PMID: 11896289]
  2. EFSA J. 2017 Jan 24;15(1):e04658 [PMID: 32625254]
  3. Environmetrics. 2012 Dec;23(8):706-716 [PMID: 23794799]
  4. Risk Anal. 2014 Jan;34(1):101-20 [PMID: 23758102]
  5. Risk Anal. 2007 Jun;27(3):659-70 [PMID: 17640214]
  6. Risk Anal. 2017 Nov;37(11):2107-2118 [PMID: 28555874]
  7. Environmetrics. 2013 May 1;24(3):143-157 [PMID: 24039461]
  8. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2011 Jul 15;254(2):181-91 [PMID: 21034758]
  9. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2014 Mar;44(3):270-97 [PMID: 24252121]
  10. Food Chem Toxicol. 2002 Feb-Mar;40(2-3):141-4 [PMID: 11893396]
  11. Risk Anal. 2007 Feb;27(1):111-23 [PMID: 17362404]
  12. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1984 Oct;4(5):854-71 [PMID: 6510615]
  13. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018 May;48(5):387-415 [PMID: 29516780]

Grants

  1. CC999999/Intramural CDC HHS
  2. Z99 ES999999/Intramural NIH HHS
  3. ZIA ES103358/Intramural NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0dosemodelsmodelbenchmarksetcontinuousendpointsbinaryaveragingapproachcandidateframeworkcurrentlyappliedtworesponsebootstrapunifiedestimationdataProtectionsafetyauthoritiesrecommendusedeterminescientificallyadvancedmethodcomparedno-observed-adverse-effect-levelobtainingreferencepointderivinghealth-basedguidancevaluesModelhoweverhighlydependsdose-responserichenoughensurewell-fittingincludedtypicallylimitedexponentialHilldifferscompletelyricherusedobjectivearticleproposegeneralwidecancoverscurrenttypecombinationoffersmethodologyillustratedusingsetsoneanotherendpointextendedmodelingAkaikeinformationcriterioncumulativedistributionfunctionmaximumlikelihood

Similar Articles

Cited By (4)