Author
Abstract
In risk assessment, it is often desired to make inferences on the minimum dose levels (benchmark doses or BMDs) at which a specific benchmark risk (BMR) is attained. The estimation and inferences of BMDs are well understood in the case of an adverse response to a single-exposure agent. However, the theory of finding BMDs and making inferences on the BMDs is much less developed for cases where the adverse effect of two hazardous agents is studied simultaneously. Deutsch and Piegorsch [2012. Benchmark dose profiles for joint-action quantal data in quantitative risk assessment. Biometrics 68(4):1313–22] proposed a benchmark modeling paradigm in dual exposure setting—adapted from the single-exposure setting—and developed a strategy for conducting full benchmark analysis with joint-action quantal data, and they further extended the proposed benchmark paradigm to continuous response outcomes [Deutsch, R. C., and W. W. Piegorsch. 2013. Benchmark dose profiles for joint-action continuous data in quantitative risk assessment. Biometrical Journal 55(5):741–54]. In their 2012 article, Deutsch and Piegorsch worked exclusively with the complementary log link for modeling the risk with quantal data. The focus of the current paper is on the logit link; particularly, we consider an Abbott-adjusted [A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18(2):265–7] log-logistic model for the analysis of quantal data with nonzero background response. We discuss the estimation of the benchmark profile (BMP)—a collection of benchmark points which induce the prespecified BMR—and propose different methods for building benchmark inferences in studies involving two hazardous agents. We perform Monte Carlo simulation studies to evaluate the characteristics of the confidence limits. An example is given to illustrate the use of the proposed methods.
Suggested Citation
Lucy Kerns, 2020.
"Benchmark profile and inferences for joint-exposure quantal data in quantitative risk assessment,"
Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(11), pages 2713-2727, June.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:lstaxx:v:49:y:2020:i:11:p:2713-2727
DOI: 10.1080/03610926.2019.1580740
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:lstaxx:v:49:y:2020:i:11:p:2713-2727. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/lsta .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.