A Unified Probabilistic Framework for Dose-Response Assessment of Human Health Effects

Overview

Journal Environ Health Perspect

Date 2015 May 27

PMID 26006063

Citations 40

Authors

Weihsueh A Chiu

Wout Slob

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: When chemical health hazards have been identified, probabilistic dose-response assessment ("hazard characterization") quantifies uncertainty and/or variability in toxicity as a function of human exposure. Existing probabilistic approaches differ for different types of endpoints or modes-of-action, lacking a unifying framework.

Objectives: We developed a unified framework for probabilistic dose-response assessment.

Methods: We established a framework based on four principles: a) individual and population dose responses are distinct; b) dose-response relationships for all (including quantal) endpoints can be recast as relating to an underlying continuous measure of response at the individual level; c) for effects relevant to humans, "effect metrics" can be specified to define "toxicologically equivalent" sizes for this underlying individual response; and d) dose-response assessment requires making adjustments and accounting for uncertainty and variability. We then derived a step-by-step probabilistic approach for dose-response assessment of animal toxicology data similar to how nonprobabilistic reference doses are derived, illustrating the approach with example non-cancer and cancer datasets.

Results: Probabilistically derived exposure limits are based on estimating a "target human dose" (HDMI), which requires risk management-informed choices for the magnitude (M) of individual effect being protected against, the remaining incidence (I) of individuals with effects ≥ M in the population, and the percent confidence. In the example datasets, probabilistically derived 90% confidence intervals for HDMI values span a 40- to 60-fold range, where I = 1% of the population experiences ≥ M = 1%-10% effect sizes.

Conclusions: Although some implementation challenges remain, this unified probabilistic framework can provide substantially more complete and transparent characterization of chemical hazards and support better-informed risk management decisions.

Citing Articles

Benchmark Dose of Melamine Exposure for a Renal Injury Marker Mediated by Oxidative Stress: Examples in Patients with Urolithiasis and Occupational Workers.

Chen C, Liu C, Wang Y, Wu C, Tsai Y, Li S Toxics. 2024; 12(8).

PMID: 39195686 PMC: 11359403. DOI: 10.3390/toxics12080584.

Reducing uncertainty in dose-response assessments by incorporating Bayesian benchmark dose modeling and in vitro data on population variability.

Lu E, Ford L, Rusyn I, Chiu W Risk Anal. 2024; 45(2):457-472.

PMID: 39148436 PMC: 11787958. DOI: 10.1111/risa.17451.

Probabilistic Reference and 10% Effect Concentrations for Characterizing Inhalation Non-cancer and Developmental/Reproductive Effects for 2,160 Substances.

Aurisano N, Fantke P, Chiu W, Judson R, Jang S, Unnikrishnan A Environ Sci Technol. 2024; 58(19):8278-8288.

PMID: 38697947 PMC: 11097392. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c00207.

Two-Stage Machine Learning-Based Approach to Predict Points of Departure for Human Noncancer and Developmental/Reproductive Effects.

Kvasnicka J, Aurisano N, von Borries K, Lu E, Fantke P, Jolliet O Environ Sci Technol. 2024; 58(35):15638-15649.

PMID: 38693844 PMC: 11371525. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c00172.

Use of human predictive patch test (HPPT) data for the classification of skin sensitization hazard and potency.

Herzler M, Abedini J, Allen D, Germolec D, Gordon J, Ko H Arch Toxicol. 2024; 98(5):1253-1269.

PMID: 38483583 PMC: 10965744. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-023-03656-4.

References

Meek M, Boobis A, Cote I, Dellarco V, Fotakis G, Munn S . New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. J Appl Toxicol. 2013; 34(1):1-18. PMC: 6701984. DOI: 10.1002/jat.2949. View

Abt E, Rodricks J, Levy J, Zeise L, Burke T . Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. Risk Anal. 2010; 30(7):1028-36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01426.x. View

Price P, Keenan R, Swartout J . Characterizing interspecies uncertainty using data from studies of anti-neoplastic agents in animals and humans. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2008; 233(1):64-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2008.03.026. View

Rhomberg L . Practical Risk Assessment and Management Issues Arising were we to Adopt Low-Dose Linearity for all Endpoints. Dose Response. 2011; 9(2):144-57. PMC: 3118764. DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.10-023.Rhomberg. View

Rhomberg L, Goodman J, Haber L, Dourson M, Andersen M, Klaunig J . Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2011; 41(1):1-19. PMC: 3038594. DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2010.536524. View

Crump K . A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1984; 4(5):854-71. DOI: 10.1016/0272-0590(84)90107-6. View

Zeise L, Bois F, Chiu W, Hattis D, Rusyn I, Guyton K . Addressing human variability in next-generation human health risk assessments of environmental chemicals. Environ Health Perspect. 2012; 121(1):23-31. PMC: 3553440. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1205687. View

Pottenger L, Becker R, Moran E, Swenberg J . Workshop report: identifying key issues underpinning the selection of linear or non-linear dose-response extrapolation for human health risk assessment of systemic toxicants. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011; 59(3):503-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.01.005. View

Evans J, Rhomberg L, Williams P, Wilson A, Baird S . Reproductive and developmental risks from ethylene oxide: a probabilistic characterization of possible regulatory thresholds. Risk Anal. 2001; 21(4):697-717. DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.214144. View

10.

Hattis D, Baird S, Goble R . A straw man proposal for a quantitative definition of the RfD. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2002; 25(4):403-36. DOI: 10.1081/dct-120014793. View

11.

Chiu W, Campbell Jr J, Clewell 3rd H, Zhou Y, Wright F, Guyton K . Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling of interstrain variability in trichloroethylene metabolism in the mouse. Environ Health Perspect. 2014; 122(5):456-63. PMC: 4014769. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1307623. View

12.

Benford D, Bolger P, Carthew P, Coulet M, Dinovi M, Leblanc J . Application of the Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010; 48 Suppl 1:S2-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2009.11.003. View

13.

Abdo N, Xia M, Brown C, Kosyk O, Huang R, Sakamuru S . Population-based in vitro hazard and concentration-response assessment of chemicals: the 1000 genomes high-throughput screening study. Environ Health Perspect. 2015; 123(5):458-66. PMC: 4421772. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1408775. View

14.

Slob W, Bakker M, Te Biesebeek J, Bokkers B . Exploring the uncertainties in cancer risk assessment using the integrated probabilistic risk assessment (IPRA) approach. Risk Anal. 2014; 34(8):1401-22. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12194. View

15.

Barlow S, Renwick A, Kleiner J, Bridges J, Busk L, Dybing E . Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe. Food Chem Toxicol. 2006; 44(10):1636-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.06.020. View

16.

Kopylev L, Chen C, White P . Towards quantitative uncertainty assessment for cancer risks: central estimates and probability distributions of risk in dose-response modeling. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007; 49(3):203-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.08.002. View

17.

Shao K, Gift J . Model Uncertainty and Bayesian Model Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Data. Risk Anal. 2013; 34(1):101-20. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12078. View

18.

OBrien J, Renwick A, Constable A, Dybing E, Muller D, Schlatter J . Approaches to the risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in food: a critical appraisal. Food Chem Toxicol. 2006; 44(10):1613-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.07.004. View

19.

Dedrick R . Animal scale-up. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1973; 1(5):435-61. DOI: 10.1007/BF01059667. View

20.

Bailer A, Noble R, Wheeler M . Model uncertainty and risk estimation for experimental studies of quantal responses. Risk Anal. 2005; 25(2):291-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00590.x. View