Re: EHP Shortcoming in current dose response theories
Posted by Deborah on 9/23/08
Good God, rational thought applied logically. I feel
reasonably certain that this good deed will not go
unpunished or uncorrupted.
On 9/22/08, Sharon wrote:
> http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/11502/11502.pdf
>
>
> "Topics included: the need for formalized approaches and
> criteria to assess the evidence for mode of action; the
use
> of human vs. animal data; the use of mode of action
> information in biologically-based models; and the
> implications of interindividual variability, background
> disease processes and background exposures in threshold
vs.
> nonthreshold model choice. Approaches that differ from
> current practice were recommended for extrapolating high-
> dose animal data to low-dose human exposures, including
> categorical approaches for integrating information on mode
> of action, statistical approaches such as model averaging,
> and inference-based models that explicitly consider
> uncertainty and interindividual variability."
>
>
> Over the past half-century, methodological advances have
> provided an increasingly strong
> quantitative basis for estimating the human health risks
> associated with exposures to
> environmental contaminants. Estimation of the dose-
response
> function is one of four critical
> elements of the now paradigmatic approach to health risk
> assessment developed in 1983 by the
> National Research Council (NRC 1983). Establishing dose-
> response functions frequently
> requires extrapolating limited amounts of data from high-
> concentration animal toxicological
> studies to the relatively lower concentrations typically
> experienced by humans. Statistical
> methods, known as “low-dose extrapolation” models, have
> been developed for this purpose, and
> their merits and limitations have been debated since the
> earliest efforts in environmental
> contaminant risk assessment.
| You are on the BLACKMOLD CHATBOARD: LATEST POSTS ALL POSTS SUBMIT POST |
| ||||||||||
|