IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v18y1998i3p329-342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Benchmark Dose Based on Overdispersed Data from Developmental Toxicity Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Y. Fung
  • Leonora Marro
  • Daniel Krewski

Abstract

Developmental anomalies resulting from prenatal toxicity can be manifested in terms of both malformations among surviving offspring and prenatal death. Although these two endpoints have traditionally been analyzed separately in the assessment of risk, multivariate methods of risk characterization have recently been proposed. We examined this and other issues in developmental toxicity risk assessment by evaluating the accuracy and precision of estimates of the effective dose (ED05) and the benchmark dose (BMD05) using computer simulation. Our results indicated that different variance structures (Dirichlet‐trinomial and generalized linear model) used to characterize overdispersion yielded comparable results when fitting joint dose response models based on generalized estimating equations. (The choice of variance structure in separate modeling was also not critical.) However, using the Rao‐Scott transformation to eliminate overdispersion tended to produce estimates of the ED05 with reduced bias and mean squared error. Because joint modeling ensures that the ED05 for overall toxicity (based on both malformations and prenatal death) is always less than the ED05 for either malformations or prenatal death, joint modeling is preferred to separate modeling for risk assessment purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Y. Fung & Leonora Marro & Daniel Krewski, 1998. "A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Benchmark Dose Based on Overdispersed Data from Developmental Toxicity Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 329-342, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:3:p:329-342
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01299.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01299.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01299.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Kavlock & Judith E. Schmid & R. Woodrow Setzer, 1996. "A Simulation Study of the Influence of Study Design on the Estimation of Benchmark Doses for Developmental Toxicity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 399-410, June.
    2. D. Krewski & Y. Zhu, 1995. "A Simple Data Transformation for Estimating Benchmark Doses in Developmental Toxicity Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 29-39, February.
    3. K. Y. Fung & D. Krewski & J. N. K. Rao & A. J. Scott, 1994. "Tests for Trend in Developmental Toxicity Experiments with Correlated Binary Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 639-648, August.
    4. Y. Zhu & D. Krewski & W. H. Ross, 1994. "Dose‐Response Models for Correlated Multinomial Data from Developmental Toxicity Studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 43(4), pages 583-598, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John F. Fox & Karen A. Hogan & Allen Davis, 2017. "Dose‐Response Modeling with Summary Data from Developmental Toxicity Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 905-917, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Krewski & Robert Smythe & Karen Y. Fung, 2002. "Optimal Designs for Estimating the Effective Dose in Developmental Toxicity Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1195-1205, December.
    2. John F. Fox & Karen A. Hogan & Allen Davis, 2017. "Dose‐Response Modeling with Summary Data from Developmental Toxicity Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 905-917, May.
    3. Dette, Holger & Pepelyshev, Andrey & Wong, Weng Kee, 2008. "Optimal designs for dose finding experiments in toxicity studies," Technical Reports 2008,09, Technische Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475: Komplexitätsreduktion in multivariaten Datenstrukturen.
    4. D. Krewski & Y. Zhu, 1995. "A Simple Data Transformation for Estimating Benchmark Doses in Developmental Toxicity Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 29-39, February.
    5. Joakim Ringblom & Fereshteh Kalantari & Gunnar Johanson & Mattias Öberg, 2018. "Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Welfare for Continuous Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(6), pages 1143-1153, June.
    6. Ahn, Chul, 1997. "An evaluation of simple methods for the estimation of a common odds ratio in clusters with variable size," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 47-61, March.
    7. Molenberghs, Geert & Declerck, Lieven & Aerts, Marc, 1998. "Misspecifying the likelihood for clustered binary data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 327-349, January.
    8. Andrew S. Allen & Huiman X. Barnhart, 2002. "Joint Models for Toxicology Studies with Dose‐Dependent Number of Implantations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1165-1173, December.
    9. Silvio S. Zocchi & Anthony C. Atkinson, 1999. "Optimum Experimental Designs for Multinomial Logistic Models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 437-444, June.
    10. R. Webster West & Ralph L. Kodell, 1999. "A Comparison of Methods of Benchmark‐Dose Estimation for Continuous Response Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 453-459, June.
    11. Fereshteh Kalantari & Joakim Ringblom & Salomon Sand & Mattias Öberg, 2017. "Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Distress for Quantal Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(9), pages 1716-1728, September.
    12. Salomon J. Sand & Dietrich Von Rosen & Agneta Falk Filipsson, 2003. "Benchmark Calculations in Risk Assessment Using Continuous Dose‐Response Information: The Influence of Variance and the Determination of a Cut‐Off Value," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 1059-1068, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:3:p:329-342. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.