Potential Uncertainty Reduction in Model‐Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimates Informed by an Additional Dose Study

A methodology is presented for assessing the information value of an additional dosage experiment in existing bioassay studies. The analysis demonstrates the potential reduction in the uncertainty of toxicity metrics derived from expanded studies, providing insights for future studies. Bayesian methods are used to fit alternative dose‐response models using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation for parameter estimation and Bayesian model averaging (BMA) is used to compare and combine the alternative models. BMA predictions for benchmark dose (BMD) are developed, with uncertainty in these predictions used to derive the lower bound BMDL. The MCMC and BMA results provide a basis for a subsequent Monte Carlo analysis that backcasts the dosage where an additional test group would have been most beneficial in reducing the uncertainty in the BMD prediction, along with the magnitude of the expected uncertainty reduction. Uncertainty reductions are measured in terms of reduced interval widths of predicted BMD values and increases in BMDL values that occur as a result of this reduced uncertainty. The methodology is illustrated using two existing data sets for TCDD carcinogenicity, fitted with two alternative dose‐response models (logistic and quantal‐linear). The example shows that an additional dose at a relatively high value would have been most effective for reducing the uncertainty in BMA BMD estimates, with predicted reductions in the widths of uncertainty intervals of approximately 30%, and expected increases in BMDL values of 5–10%. The results demonstrate that dose selection for studies that subsequently inform dose‐response models can benefit from consideration of how these models will be fit, combined, and interpreted.     

Bootstrap Estimation of Benchmark Doses and Confidence Limits with Clustered Quantal Data

The benchmark dose (BMD) is an exposure level that would induce a small risk increase (BMR level) above the background. The BMD approach to deriving a reference dose for risk assessment of noncancer effects is advantageous in that the estimate of BMD is not restricted to experimental doses and utilizes most available dose-response information. To quantify statistical uncertainty of a BMD estimate, we often calculate and report its lower confidence limit (i.e., BMDL), and may even consider it as a more conservative alternative to BMD itself. Computation of BMDL may involve normal confidence limits to BMD in conjunction with the delta method. Therefore, factors, such as small sample size and nonlinearity in model parameters, can affect the performance of the delta method BMDL, and alternative methods are useful. In this article, we propose a bootstrap method to estimate BMDL utilizing a scheme that consists of a resampling of residuals after model fitting and a one-step formula for parameter estimation. We illustrate the method with clustered binary data from developmental toxicity experiments. Our analysis shows that with moderately elevated dose-response data, the distribution of BMD estimator tends to be left-skewed and bootstrap BMDL s are smaller than the delta method BMDL s on average, hence quantifying risk more conservatively. Statistically, the bootstrap BMDL quantifies the uncertainty of the true BMD more honestly than the delta method BMDL as its coverage probability is closer to the nominal level than that of delta method BMDL. We find that BMD and BMDL estimates are generally insensitive to model choices provided that the models fit the data comparably well near the region of BMD. Our analysis also suggests that, in the presence of a significant and moderately strong dose-response relationship, the developmental toxicity experiments under the standard protocol support dose-response assessment at 5% BMR for BMD and 95% confidence level for BMDL.     

Model Selection and Estimation with Quantal‐Response Data in Benchmark Risk Assessment

This article describes several approaches for estimating the benchmark dose (BMD) in a risk assessment study with quantal dose‐response data and when there are competing model classes for the dose‐response function. Strategies involving a two‐step approach, a model‐averaging approach, a focused‐inference approach, and a nonparametric approach based on a PAVA‐based estimator of the dose‐response function are described and compared. Attention is raised to the perils involved in data “double‐dipping” and the need to adjust for the model‐selection stage in the estimation procedure. Simulation results are presented comparing the performance of five model selectors and eight BMD estimators. An illustration using a real quantal‐response data set from a carcinogenecity study is provided.     

A Simulation Study of Quantitative Risk Assessment for Bivariate Continuous Outcomes

The neurotoxic effects of chemical agents are often investigated in controlled studies on rodents, with binary and continuous multiple endpoints routinely collected. One goal is to conduct quantitative risk assessment to determine safe dose levels. Yu and Catalano (2005) describe a method for quantitative risk assessment for bivariate continuous outcomes by extending a univariate method of percentile regression. The model is likelihood based and allows for separate dose‐response models for each outcome while accounting for the bivariate correlation. The approach to benchmark dose (BMD) estimation is analogous to that for quantal data without having to specify arbitrary cutoff values. In this article, we evaluate the behavior of the BMD relative to background rates, sample size, level of bivariate correlation, dose‐response trend, and distributional assumptions. Using simulations, we explore the effects of these factors on the resulting BMD and BMDL distributions. In addition, we illustrate our method with data from a neurotoxicity study of parathion exposure in rats.     

Properties of Model-Averaged BMDLs: A Study of Model Averaging in Dichotomous Response Risk Estimation

Model averaging (MA) has been proposed as a method of accounting for model uncertainty in benchmark dose (BMD) estimation. The technique has been used to average BMD dose estimates derived from dichotomous dose-response experiments, microbial dose-response experiments, as well as observational epidemiological studies. While MA is a promising tool for the risk assessor, a previous study suggested that the simple strategy of averaging individual models' BMD lower limits did not yield interval estimators that met nominal coverage levels in certain situations, and this performance was very sensitive to the underlying model space chosen. We present a different, more computationally intensive, approach in which the BMD is estimated using the average dose-response model and the corresponding benchmark dose lower bound (BMDL) is computed by bootstrapping. This method is illustrated with TiO(2) dose-response rat lung cancer data, and then systematically studied through an extensive Monte Carlo simulation. The results of this study suggest that the MA-BMD, estimated using this technique, performs better, in terms of bias and coverage, than the previous MA methodology. Further, the MA-BMDL achieves nominal coverage in most cases, and is superior to picking the "best fitting model" when estimating the benchmark dose. Although these results show utility of MA for benchmark dose risk estimation, they continue to highlight the importance of choosing an adequate model space as well as proper model fit diagnostics.     

A Diversity Index for Model Space Selection in the Estimation of Benchmark and Infectious Doses via Model Averaging

In chemical and microbial risk assessments, risk assessors fit dose‐response models to high‐dose data and extrapolate downward to risk levels in the range of 1–10%. Although multiple dose‐response models may be able to fit the data adequately in the experimental range, the estimated effective dose (ED) corresponding to an extremely small risk can be substantially different from model to model. In this respect, model averaging (MA) provides more robustness than a single dose‐response model in the point and interval estimation of an ED. In MA, accounting for both data uncertainty and model uncertainty is crucial, but addressing model uncertainty is not achieved simply by increasing the number of models in a model space. A plausible set of models for MA can be characterized by goodness of fit and diversity surrounding the truth. We propose a diversity index (DI) to balance between these two characteristics in model space selection. It addresses a collective property of a model space rather than individual performance of each model. Tuning parameters in the DI control the size of the model space for MA.     

Model Uncertainty and Risk Estimation for Experimental Studies of Quantal Responses

Experimental animal studies often serve as the basis for predicting risk of adverse responses in humans exposed to occupational hazards. A statistical model is applied to exposure-response data and this fitted model may be used to obtain estimates of the exposure associated with a specified level of adverse response. Unfortunately, a number of different statistical models are candidates for fitting the data and may result in wide ranging estimates of risk. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) offers a strategy for addressing uncertainty in the selection of statistical models when generating risk estimates. This strategy is illustrated with two examples: applying the multistage model to cancer responses and a second example where different quantal models are fit to kidney lesion data. BMA provides excess risk estimates or benchmark dose estimates that reflects model uncertainty.     

A Review of Recent Advances in Benchmark Dose Methodology

In this review, recent methodological developments for the benchmark dose (BMD) methodology are summarized. Specifically, we introduce the advances for the main steps in BMD derivation: selecting the procedure for defining a BMD from a predefined benchmark response (BMR), setting a BMR, selecting a dose–response model, and estimating the corresponding BMD lower limit (BMDL). Although the last decade has shown major progress in the development of BMD methodology, there is still room for improvement. Remaining challenges are the implementation of new statistical methods in user‐friendly software and the lack of consensus about how to derive the BMDL.     

Benchmark Dose Calculation for Ordered Categorical Responses

The use of benchmark dose (BMD) calculations for dichotomous or continuous responses is well established in the risk assessment of cancer and noncancer endpoints. In some cases, responses to exposure are categorized in terms of ordinal severity effects such as none, mild, adverse, and severe. Such responses can be assessed using categorical regression (CATREG) analysis. However, while CATREG has been employed to compare the benchmark approach and the no‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL) approach in determining a reference dose, the utility of CATREG for risk assessment remains unclear. This study proposes a CATREG model to extend the BMD approach to ordered categorical responses by modeling severity levels as censored interval limits of a standard normal distribution. The BMD is calculated as a weighted average of the BMDs obtained at dichotomous cutoffs for each adverse severity level above the critical effect, with the weights being proportional to the reciprocal of the expected loss at the cutoff under the normal probability model. This approach provides a link between the current BMD procedures for dichotomous and continuous data. We estimate the CATREG parameters using a Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation procedure. The proposed method is demonstrated using examples of aldicarb and urethane, each with several categories of severity levels. Simulation studies comparing the BMD and BMDL (lower confidence bound on the BMD) using the proposed method to the correspondent estimates using the existing methods for dichotomous and continuous data are quite compatible; the difference is mainly dependent on the choice of cutoffs for the severity levels.     

Dose‐Response Modeling with Summary Data from Developmental Toxicity Studies

Dose‐response analysis of binary developmental data (e.g., implant loss, fetal abnormalities) is best done using individual fetus data (identified to litter) or litter‐specific statistics such as number of offspring per litter and proportion abnormal. However, such data are not often available to risk assessors. Scientific articles usually present only dose‐group summaries for the number or average proportion abnormal and the total number of fetuses. Without litter‐specific data, it is not possible to estimate variances correctly (often characterized as a problem of overdispersion, intralitter correlation, or “litter effect”). However, it is possible to use group summary data when the design effect has been estimated for each dose group. Previous studies have demonstrated useful dose‐response and trend test analyses based on design effect estimates using litter‐specific data from the same study. This simplifies the analysis but does not help when litter‐specific data are unavailable. In the present study, we show that summary data on fetal malformations can be adjusted satisfactorily using estimates of the design effect based on historical data. When adjusted data are then analyzed with models designed for binomial responses, the resulting benchmark doses are similar to those obtained from analyzing litter‐level data with nested dichotomous models.     

Quantitative Risk Assessment: Developing a Bayesian Approach to Dichotomous Dose–Response Uncertainty

Model averaging for dichotomous dose–response estimation is preferred to estimate the benchmark dose (BMD) from a single model, but challenges remain regarding implementing these methods for general analyses before model averaging is feasible to use in many risk assessment applications, and there is little work on Bayesian methods that include informative prior information for both the models and the parameters of the constituent models. This article introduces a novel approach that addresses many of the challenges seen while providing a fully Bayesian framework. Furthermore, in contrast to methods that use Monte Carlo Markov Chain, we approximate the posterior density using maximum a posteriori estimation. The approximation allows for an accurate and reproducible estimate while maintaining the speed of maximum likelihood, which is crucial in many applications such as processing massive high throughput data sets. We assess this method by applying it to empirical laboratory dose–response data and measuring the coverage of confidence limits for the BMD. We compare the coverage of this method to that of other approaches using the same set of models. Through the simulation study, the method is shown to be markedly superior to the traditional approach of selecting a single preferred model (e.g., from the U.S. EPA BMD software) for the analysis of dichotomous data and is comparable or superior to the other approaches.     

Comparing Experimental Designs for Benchmark Dose Calculations for Continuous Endpoints

The BMD (benchmark dose) method that is used in risk assessment of chemical compounds was introduced by Crump (1984) and is based on dose-response modeling. To take uncertainty in the data and model fitting into account, the lower confidence bound of the BMD estimate (BMDL) is suggested to be used as a point of departure in health risk assessments. In this article, we study how to design optimum experiments for applying the BMD method for continuous data. We exemplify our approach by considering the class of Hill models. The main aim is to study whether an increased number of dose groups and at the same time a decreased number of animals in each dose group improves conditions for estimating the benchmark dose. Since Hill models are nonlinear, the optimum design depends on the values of the unknown parameters. That is why we consider Bayesian designs and assume that the parameter vector has a prior distribution. A natural design criterion is to minimize the expected variance of the BMD estimator. We present an example where we calculate the value of the design criterion for several designs and try to find out how the number of dose groups, the number of animals in the dose groups, and the choice of doses affects this value for different Hill curves. It follows from our calculations that to avoid the risk of unfavorable dose placements, it is good to use designs with more than four dose groups. We can also conclude that any additional information about the expected dose-response curve, e.g., information obtained from studies made in the past, should be taken into account when planning a study because it can improve the design.     

An Empirical Approach to Sufficient Similarity: Combining Exposure Data and Mixtures Toxicology Data

When assessing risks posed by environmental chemical mixtures, whole mixture approaches are preferred to component approaches. When toxicological data on whole mixtures as they occur in the environment are not available, Environmental Protection Agency guidance states that toxicity data from a mixture considered “sufficiently similar” to the environmental mixture can serve as a surrogate. We propose a novel method to examine whether mixtures are sufficiently similar, when exposure data and mixture toxicity study data from at least one representative mixture are available. We define sufficient similarity using equivalence testing methodology comparing the distance between benchmark dose estimates for mixtures in both data‐rich and data‐poor cases. We construct a “similar mixtures risk indicator”(SMRI) (analogous to the hazard index) on sufficiently similar mixtures linking exposure data with mixtures toxicology data. The methods are illustrated using pyrethroid mixtures occurrence data collected in child care centers (CCC) and dose‐response data examining acute neurobehavioral effects of pyrethroid mixtures in rats. Our method shows that the mixtures from 90% of the CCCs were sufficiently similar to the dose‐response study mixture. Using exposure estimates for a hypothetical child, the 95th percentile of the (weighted) SMRI for these sufficiently similar mixtures was 0.20 (i.e., where SMRI <1, less concern; >1, more concern).     

Quantile Uncertainty and Value‐at‐Risk Model Risk

This article develops a methodology for quantifying model risk in quantile risk estimates. The application of quantile estimates to risk assessment has become common practice in many disciplines, including hydrology, climate change, statistical process control, insurance and actuarial science, and the uncertainty surrounding these estimates has long been recognized. Our work is particularly important in finance, where quantile estimates (called Value‐at‐Risk) have been the cornerstone of banking risk management since the mid 1980s. A recent amendment to the Basel II Accord recommends additional market risk capital to cover all sources of “model risk” in the estimation of these quantiles. We provide a novel and elegant framework whereby quantile estimates are adjusted for model risk, relative to a benchmark which represents the state of knowledge of the authority that is responsible for model risk. A simulation experiment in which the degree of model risk is controlled illustrates how to quantify Value‐at‐Risk model risk and compute the required regulatory capital add‐on for banks. An empirical example based on real data shows how the methodology can be put into practice, using only two time series (daily Value‐at‐Risk and daily profit and loss) from a large bank. We conclude with a discussion of potential applications to nonfinancial risks.     

Relation Between Benchmark Dose and No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level in Clinical Research: Effects of Daily Alcohol Intake on Blood Pressure in Japanese Salesmen

The benchmark dose (BMD) is defined as the dose that corresponds to a specific change in an adverse response compared to the response in unexposed subjects, and the lower 95% confidence limit is termed the benchmark dose level (BMDL). In this study, the threshold of daily ethanol intake affecting blood pressure was calculated by both the BMD approach and multiple logistic regression analysis to clarify the relation between the BMDL and no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) and daily ethanol intake were explored in 1,100 Japanese salesmen. The SBP and DBP were positively related to daily ethanol intake (p < 0.001) when adjusting for possible confounders such as age, body mass index, and smoking status. The adjusted risk for hypertension (SBP >or= 140 mmHg or DBP >or= 90 mmHg) increased significantly when daily ethanol intake exceeded 60 g/day, and the categorical dose of interest was 60.1-90 g/day. The BMDL and BMD of ethanol intake for increased SBP and DBP were estimated to be approximately 60 and 75 g/day, respectively. These findings suggest that the BMDL and BMD correspond to the NOAEL and lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, respectively, if the sample number of clinical data is large enough to confirm the dose-response association.     

Peak Exposures in Epidemiologic Studies and Cancer Risks: Considerations for Regulatory Risk Assessment

We review approaches for characterizing “peak” exposures in epidemiologic studies and methods for incorporating peak exposure metrics in dose–response assessments that contribute to risk assessment. The focus was on potential etiologic relations between environmental chemical exposures and cancer risks. We searched the epidemiologic literature on environmental chemicals classified as carcinogens in which cancer risks were described in relation to “peak” exposures. These articles were evaluated to identify some of the challenges associated with defining and describing cancer risks in relation to peak exposures. We found that definitions of peak exposure varied considerably across studies. Of nine chemical agents included in our review of peak exposure, six had epidemiologic data used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in dose–response assessments to derive inhalation unit risk values. These were benzene, formaldehyde, styrene, trichloroethylene, acrylonitrile, and ethylene oxide. All derived unit risks relied on cumulative exposure for dose–response estimation and none, to our knowledge, considered peak exposure metrics. This is not surprising, given the historical linear no‐threshold default model (generally based on cumulative exposure) used in regulatory risk assessments. With newly proposed US EPA rule language, fuller consideration of alternative exposure and dose–response metrics will be supported. “Peak” exposure has not been consistently defined and rarely has been evaluated in epidemiologic studies of cancer risks. We recommend developing uniform definitions of “peak” exposure to facilitate fuller evaluation of dose response for environmental chemicals and cancer risks, especially where mechanistic understanding indicates that the dose response is unlikely linear and that short‐term high‐intensity exposures increase risk.     

Benchmark Dose Analysis via Nonparametric Regression Modeling

Estimation of benchmark doses (BMDs) in quantitative risk assessment traditionally is based upon parametric dose‐response modeling. It is a well‐known concern, however, that if the chosen parametric model is uncertain and/or misspecified, inaccurate and possibly unsafe low‐dose inferences can result. We describe a nonparametric approach for estimating BMDs with quantal‐response data based on an isotonic regression method, and also study use of corresponding, nonparametric, bootstrap‐based confidence limits for the BMD. We explore the confidence limits’ small‐sample properties via a simulation study, and illustrate the calculations with an example from cancer risk assessment. It is seen that this nonparametric approach can provide a useful alternative for BMD estimation when faced with the problem of parametric model uncertainty.     

Model Averaging in Microbial Risk Assessment Using Fractional Polynomials

The alleviation of food-borne diseases caused by microbial pathogen remains a great concern in order to ensure the well-being of the general public. The relation between the ingested dose of organisms and the associated infection risk can be studied using dose-response models. Traditionally, a model selected according to a goodness-of-fit criterion has been used for making inferences. In this article, we propose a modified set of fractional polynomials as competitive dose-response models in risk assessment. The article not only shows instances where it is not obvious to single out one best model but also illustrates that model averaging can best circumvent this dilemma. The set of candidate models is chosen based on biological plausibility and rationale and the risk at a dose common to all these models estimated using the selected models and by averaging over all models using Akaike's weights. In addition to including parameter estimation inaccuracy, like in the case of a single selected model, model averaging accounts for the uncertainty arising from other competitive models. This leads to a better and more honest estimation of standard errors and construction of confidence intervals for risk estimates. The approach is illustrated for risk estimation at low dose levels based on Salmonella typhi and Campylobacter jejuni data sets in humans. Simulation studies indicate that model averaging has reduced bias, better precision, and also attains coverage probabilities that are closer to the 95% nominal level compared to best-fitting models according to Akaike information criterion.     

Calculation of Benchmark Doses from Continuous Data

A benchmark dose (BMD) is the dose of a substance that corresponds to a prescribed increase in the response (called the benchmark response or BMR) of a health effect. A statistical lower bound on the benchmark dose (BMDL) has been proposed as a replacement for the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) in setting acceptable human exposure levels. A method is developed in this paper for calculating BMDs and BMDLs from continuous data in a manner that is consistent with those calculated from quantal data. The method involves defining an abnormal response, either directly by specifying a cutoff x₀ that separates continuous responses into normal and abnormal categories, or indirectly by specifying the proportion P₀ of abnormal responses expected among unexposed subjects. The method does not involve actually dichotomizing individual continuous responses into quantal responses, and in certain cases can be applied to continuous data in summarized form (e.g., means and standard deviations of continuous responses among subjects in discrete dose groups). In addition to specifying the BMR and either x₀ or P₀ , the method requires specification of the distribution of continuous responses, including specification of the dose-response θ(d) for a measure of central tendency. A method is illustrated for selecting θ(d) to make the probability of an abnormal response any desired dose-response function. This enables the same dose-response model (Weibull, log-logistic, etc.) to be used for the probability of an abnormal response, regardless of whether the underlying data are continuous or quantal. Whenever the continuous responses are normally distributed with standard deviation σ (independent of dose), the method is equivalent to defining the BMD as the dose corresponding to a prescribed change in the mean response relative to σ.     

Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Welfare for Continuous Effects

The benchmark dose (BMD) approach is increasingly used as a preferred approach for dose–effect analysis, but standard experimental designs are generally not optimized for BMD analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the use of unequally sized dose groups affects the quality of BMD estimates in toxicity testing, with special consideration of the total burden of animal distress. We generated continuous dose–effect data by Monte Carlo simulation using two dose–effect curves based on endpoints with different shape parameters. Eighty‐five designs, each with four dose groups of unequal size, were examined in scenarios ranging from low‐ to high‐dose placements and with a total number of animals set to 40, 80, or 200. For each simulation, a BMD value was estimated and compared with the “true” BMD. In general, redistribution of animals from higher to lower dose groups resulted in an improved precision of the calculated BMD value as long as dose placements were high enough to detect a significant trend in the dose–effect data with sufficient power. The improved BMD precision and the associated reduction of the number of animals exposed to the highest dose, where chemically induced distress is most likely to occur, are favorable for the reduction and refinement principles. The result thereby strengthen BMD‐aligned design of experiments as a means for more accurate hazard characterization along with animal welfare improvements.