Login
Thursday, September 09, 2010
RECOMMENDED DOSE-RESPONSE CHARACTERIZATION

 

The ED10 is more directly and consistently related to the observed dose-response data than the  regulatory potency measure (q1*) based on the linearized multistage model.  In addition, the multistage and linearized multistage models are limited in their ability to reflect the observed dose-response data especially at lower doses -- because of the limited flexibility imposed by their structure (functional form) and regulatory policies that assume non-threshold behavior and force the models parameter values to be greater than or equal to zero regardless of the data.  Furthermore, the linearized multistage model has been designed for regulatory purposes to be biased with a strong tendency to overstate risks.  Therefore, my recommendation is to use the ED10 as the basis for the dose-response characterization and not the regulatory potency measure (q1*) based on the linearized multistage model. 

3. Human Health Risk Assessment
3.1     
Quantitative Risk Assessment and Statistical Analysis
3.2      Importance of Dose and Dose-Response Relationships
3.3      Misuse of Regulatory Upper-Bound Risk Characterizations
3.4      Risk Characterization Choices and Risk Exaggeration
3.5      A Better Approach to Cancer Risk Characterization
3.6      Overview of Background, Motivation, and Statistical Methods for Margin-of-Exposure Characterizations of Cancer Risks
           3.6.1    Importance of Dose
           3.6.2    Dose-Response Modeling
           3.6.3    Dose-Response Models
           3.6.4    Maximum Likelihood Estimation
           3.6.5    
Multistage Model
           3.6.6    Example of Fitted Multistage Model
           3.6.7    Potency
           3.6.8    Linearized Multistage Model
           3.6.9    Overstatement of Risks by the Linearized Multistage Model
           3.6.10  Adverse Impacts of the Variability in the Magnitude of the Bias in the Linearized Multistage Model's Overstatement of Risks
           3.6.11  Non-Responsiveness of the Linearized Multistage Model to Data
           3.6.12  Ranking Relative Risks
           3.6.13  Added Risk versus Extra Risk
           3.6.14  Need for a Better Dose-Response Characterization
           3.6.15  Better Dose-Response Characterization
           3.6.16  Benchmark Doses
           3.6.17  Responsiveness of Benchmark Doses Data Versus the Relative Non-Responsiveness of the Regulatory Upper-Bound Potency Q1* based on the Linearized Multistage Model
           3.6.18  Recommended Dose-Response Characterization
           3.6.19  Margin-of-Exposure Characterizations
           3.6.20  Conclusion
           3.6.21  Figures 1 to 16
3.7      Innovative Risk Assessment
3.8      Components of High-to-Low-Dose Extrapolation and Dose-Response Modeling
3.9      Probabilistic Exposure Assessment
3.10    Aggregate Risk Assessment
3.11    Cumulative Risk Assessment
3.12    Example Activities