IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i9p1716-1728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Distress for Quantal Responses

Author

Listed:
  • Fereshteh Kalantari
  • Joakim Ringblom
  • Salomon Sand
  • Mattias Öberg

Abstract

Increasingly, dose‐response data are being evaluated with the benchmark dose (BMD) approach rather than by the less precise no‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL) approach. However, the basis for designing animal experiments, using equally sized dose groups, is still primed for the NOAEL approach. The major objective here was to assess the impact of using dose groups of unequal size on both the quality of the BMD and overall animal distress. We examined study designs with a total number of 200 animals distributed in four dose groups employing quantal data generated by Monte Carlo simulations. Placing more animals at doses close to the targeted BMD provided an estimate of BMD that was slightly better than the standard design with equally sized dose groups. In situations involving a clear dose‐response, this translates into fewer animals receiving high doses and thus less overall animal distress. Accordingly, in connection with risk and safety assessment, animal distress can potentially be reduced by distributing the animals appropriately between dose groups without decreasing the quality of the information obtained.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:9:p:1716-1728
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12741
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12741?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. Kristi Kuljus & Dietrich Von Rosen & Salomon Sand & Katarina Victorin, 2006. "Comparing Experimental Designs for Benchmark Dose Calculations for Continuous Endpoints," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1031-1043, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Christel Faes & Marc Aerts & Helena Geys & Geert Molenberghs, 2007. "Model Averaging Using Fractional Polynomials to Estimate a Safe Level of Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 111-123, February.
    4. Carole A. Kimmel & David W. Gaylor, 1988. "Issues in Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Analysis for Developmental Toxicology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 15-20, March.
    5. Matthew W. Wheeler & A. John Bailer, 2007. "Properties of Model‐Averaged BMDLs: A Study of Model Averaging in Dichotomous Response Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 659-670, June.
    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. 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.
    2. Signe M. Jensen & Felix M. Kluxen & Christian Ritz, 2019. "A Review of Recent Advances in Benchmark Dose Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2295-2315, October.

    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. Walter W. Piegorsch & Hui Xiong & Rabi N. Bhattacharya & Lizhen Lin, 2014. "Benchmark Dose Analysis via Nonparametric Regression Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 135-151, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Mirjana Glisovic‐Bensa & Walter W. Piegorsch & Edward J. Bedrick, 2024. "Bayesian benchmark dose risk assessment with mixed‐factor quantal data," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(5), August.
    4. Steven B. Kim & Ralph L. Kodell & Hojin Moon, 2014. "A Diversity Index for Model Space Selection in the Estimation of Benchmark and Infectious Doses via Model Averaging," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 453-464, March.
    5. Signe M. Jensen & Felix M. Kluxen & Christian Ritz, 2019. "A Review of Recent Advances in Benchmark Dose Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2295-2315, October.
    6. Nilabja Guha & Anindya Roy & Leonid Kopylev & John Fox & Maria Spassova & Paul White, 2013. "Nonparametric Bayesian Methods for Benchmark Dose Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1608-1619, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Christel Faes & Marc Aerts & Helena Geys & Geert Molenberghs, 2007. "Model Averaging Using Fractional Polynomials to Estimate a Safe Level of Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 111-123, February.
    9. Daniel O. Scharfstein & Paige L. Williams, 1994. "Design of Developmental Toxicity Studies for Assessing Joint Effects of Dose and Duration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1057-1071, December.
    10. J. Michael Davis & Annie M. Jarabek & David T. Mage & Judith A. Graham, 1998. "The EPA Health Risk Assessment of Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl (MMT)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 57-70, February.
    11. Edsel A. Peña & Wensong Wu & Walter Piegorsch & Ronald W. West & LingLing An, 2017. "Model Selection and Estimation with Quantal‐Response Data in Benchmark Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 716-732, April.
    12. Matthew W. Wheeler & Todd Blessinger & Kan Shao & Bruce C. Allen & Louis Olszyk & J. Allen Davis & Jeffrey S Gift, 2020. "Quantitative Risk Assessment: Developing a Bayesian Approach to Dichotomous Dose–Response Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(9), pages 1706-1722, September.
    13. Jeffrey C. Swartout & Paul S. Price & Michael L. Dourson & Heather L. Carlson‐Lynch & Russell E. Keenan, 1998. "A Probabilistic Framework for the Reference Dose (Probabilistic RfD)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 271-282, June.
    14. David W. Gaylor & William Slikker, 1994. "Modeling for Risk Assessment of Neurotoxic Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 333-338, June.
    15. Brian G. Leroux & Wendy M. Leisenring & Suresh H. Moolgavkar & Elaine M. Faustman, 1996. "A Biologically‐Based Dose—Response Model for Developmental Toxicology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 449-458, August.
    16. Raimo I. Niemelä & Jorma Rantanen & Mirja K. Kiilunen, 1998. "Target Levels—Tools for Prevention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 679-688, December.
    17. Sushil B. Tamrakar & Anne Haluska & Charles N. Haas & Timothy A. Bartrand, 2011. "Dose‐Response Model of Coxiella burnetii (Q Fever)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 120-128, January.
    18. Matthew Wheeler & A. John Bailer, 2012. "Monotonic Bayesian Semiparametric Benchmark Dose Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1207-1218, July.
    19. Marc Aerts & Matthew W. Wheeler & José Cortiñas Abrahantes, 2020. "An extended and unified modeling framework for benchmark dose estimation for both continuous and binary data," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(7), November.
    20. Kaatje Bollaerts & Marc Aerts & Christel Faes & Koen Grijspeerdt & Jeroen Dewulf & Koen Mintiens, 2008. "Human Salmonellosis: Estimation of Dose‐Illness from Outbreak Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 427-440, April.

    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:37:y:2017:i:9:p:1716-1728. 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.