Regular Article
Procedures for Calculating Benchmark Doses for Health Risk Assessment

https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.1998.1247Get rights and content

Abstract

Safety assessment for noncancer health effects generally has been based upon dividing a no observed adverse effect (NOAEL) by uncertainty (safety) factors to provide an acceptable daily intake (ADI) or reference dose (RfD). Since the NOAEL does not utilize all of the available dose–response data, allows higher ADI from poorer experiments, and may have an unknown, unacceptable level of risk, the benchmark dose (BD) with a specified, controlled low level of risk has become popular as an adjunct to the NOAEL or the low observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) in the safety assessment process. The purpose of this paper is to summarize statistical procedures available for calculating BDs and their confidence limits for noncancer endpoints. Procedures are presented and illustrated for quantal (binary), quasicontinuous (proportion), and continuous data. Quasicontinuous data arise in developmental studies where the measure of an effect for a fetus is quantal (normal or abnormal) but the experimental unit is the mother (litter) so that results can be expressed as the proportion of abnormal fetuses per litter. However, the correlation of effects among fetuses within a litter poses some additional statistical problems. Also, developmental studies usually include some continuous measures, such as fetal body weight or length. With continuous data there generally is not a clear demarcation between normal and adverse measurements. In such cases, extremely high and/or low measurements at some designated percentile(s) can be considered abnormal. Then the probability (risk) of abnormal individuals can be estimated as a function of dose. The procedure for estimating a BD with continuous data is illustrated using neurotoxicity data. When multiple measures of adverse effects are available, a BD can be estimated based on a selected endpoint or the appearance of any combination of endpoints. Multivariate procedures are illustrated using developmental and reproductive toxicity data.

References (63)

  • W. Slikker et al.

    Neurochemical and neurohistological alterations in the rat and monkey produced by orally administered methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)

    Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.

    (1988)
  • R.J. Bosch et al.

    A semiparametric approach to risk assessment for quantitative outcomes

    Risk Anal.

    (1996)
  • N.E. Breslow et al.

    Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models

    J. Am. Stat. Assoc.

    (1993)
  • G.J. Carr et al.

    An evaluation of the Rai and Van Ryzin dose-response model in teratology

    Risk Anal.

    (1991)
  • G.J. Carr et al.

    An evaluation of some methods for fitting dose–response models to quantal–response developmental toxicology data

    Biometrics

    (1993)
  • P.J. Catalano et al.

    Bivariate latent variable models for clustered discrete and continuous outcomes

    J. Am. Stat. Assoc.

    (1992)
  • P.J. Catalano et al.

    Statistical model for fetal death, fetal weight, and malformation in developmental toxicity studies

    Teratology

    (1993)
  • P.J. Catalano et al.

    Modeling fetal death and malformation in developmental toxicity

    Risk Anal.

    (1994)
  • J.J. Chen et al.

    Quantitative risk assessment for teratologic effects

    J. Am. Stat. Assoc.

    (1989)
  • J.J. Chen et al.

    Analysis of trinomial responses from reproductive and developmental toxicity experiments

    Biometrics

    (1991)
  • J.J. Chen et al.

    Dose–response modeling of quantitative response data for risk assessment

    Commun. Stat. Theory Methods

    (1992)
  • J.J. Chen

    A Malformation incidence dose–response model incorporating fetal weight and/or litter size as covariates

    Risk Anal.

    (1993)
  • J.J. Chen et al.

    Dose–response modeling of trinomial responses from developmental experiments

    Stat. Sin.

    (1994)
  • M.J. Crowder

    Beta-binomial ANOVA for proportion

    Appl. Statist.

    (1978)
  • K.S. Crump

    Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data

    Risk Anal.

    (1995)
  • E.M. Faustman et al.

    Characterization of a developmental toxicity dose–response model

    Environ. Health Perspect.

    (1989)
  • K.Y. Fung et al.

    Tests for trend in developmental toxicity experiments with correlated binary data

    Risk Anal.

    (1994)
  • D.W. Gaylor

    Quantitative risk analysis for quantal reproductive and developmental effects

    Environ. Health Perspect.

    (1989)
  • D.W. Gaylor et al.

    Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects

    Neuro Toxicol.

    (1990)
  • D.W. Gaylor et al.

    Modeling for risk assessment of neurotoxic effects

    Risk Anal.

    (1994)
  • J.J. Gart et al.

    Statistical Methods in Cancer Research

    (1986)
  • Cited by (87)

    • Risk assessment for metal exposures

      2021, Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals: Fifth Edition
    • Risk assessment for metal exposures

      2021, Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals: Volume I: General Considerations
    • Use of benchmark dose models in risk assessment for occupational handlers of eight pesticides used in pome fruit production

      2020, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thiacloprid is also classified as a likely human carcinogen, but as the EPA occupational risk assessment was based on organ toxicities as the more protective outcomes, a cancer risk assessment was not performed in this analysis. Each possible model was assessed for goodness-of-fit using qualitative evaluation of the dose-response graph and the p-value of the χ2 (Gaylor et al., 1998) goodness-of-fit test. Models were compared within each toxicological endpoint using the qualitative fit of the curve, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), and the residuals.

    • Risk Assessment

      2015, Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals: Fourth Edition
    • Risk Assessment

      2014, Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Florida, 13201 Bruce B Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612. E-mail:[email protected].

    View full text