Statistical Methods for Handling Nondetected Results in Food Chemical Monitoring Data to Improve Food Risk Assessments

Hwang M, Lee Sc, Park Jh, Choi Jh, Lee Hj
{"title":"Statistical Methods for Handling Nondetected Results in Food Chemical Monitoring Data to Improve Food Risk Assessments","authors":"Hwang M, Lee Sc, Park Jh, Choi Jh, Lee Hj","doi":"10.26420/austinjpublichealthepidemiol.2022.1129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chemical risk assessment is important for risk management, and estimates of chemical exposure must be as accurate as possible. Chemical concentrations in food below the limit of detection are known as nondetects and result in leftcensored data. During statistical analysis, the method used for handling values below the limit of detection is important. Many risk assessors employ widely used substitution methods to treat left-censored data, as recommended by international organizations. The National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation of South Korea also recommend these methods, which are currently used for chemical exposure assessments. However, these methods have statistical limitations, and international organizations recommend more advanced alternative statistical approaches. In this study, we assessed the validity of currently used statistical methods for handling nondetects. The best method was determined based on a simulation study. In three case studies, we compared the various methods based on the root mean squared error. The data for all case studies were from the same source, to avoid heterogeneity. Across various sample sizes and nondetection rates, the mean and 95th percentile values for all treatment methods were similar. However, “log normal maximum likelihood estimation” method was not suitable for estimating the mean. Risk assessors should consider statistical processing of monitoring data to reduce uncertainty. Currently used substitution methods are effective and easy to apply to large data sets with nondetection rates < 80%. However, advanced statistical methods are required in some circumstances, and national guidelines are needed regarding their use in risk assessments.","PeriodicalId":93417,"journal":{"name":"Austin journal of public health and epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austin journal of public health and epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26420/austinjpublichealthepidemiol.2022.1129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Chemical risk assessment is important for risk management, and estimates of chemical exposure must be as accurate as possible. Chemical concentrations in food below the limit of detection are known as nondetects and result in leftcensored data. During statistical analysis, the method used for handling values below the limit of detection is important. Many risk assessors employ widely used substitution methods to treat left-censored data, as recommended by international organizations. The National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation of South Korea also recommend these methods, which are currently used for chemical exposure assessments. However, these methods have statistical limitations, and international organizations recommend more advanced alternative statistical approaches. In this study, we assessed the validity of currently used statistical methods for handling nondetects. The best method was determined based on a simulation study. In three case studies, we compared the various methods based on the root mean squared error. The data for all case studies were from the same source, to avoid heterogeneity. Across various sample sizes and nondetection rates, the mean and 95th percentile values for all treatment methods were similar. However, “log normal maximum likelihood estimation” method was not suitable for estimating the mean. Risk assessors should consider statistical processing of monitoring data to reduce uncertainty. Currently used substitution methods are effective and easy to apply to large data sets with nondetection rates < 80%. However, advanced statistical methods are required in some circumstances, and national guidelines are needed regarding their use in risk assessments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食品化学监测数据中未检出结果的统计处理方法以提高食品风险评估
化学品风险评估对风险管理很重要,对化学品暴露的估计必须尽可能准确。食品中的化学物质浓度低于检测限度被称为未检测,并导致遗漏数据。在统计分析中,处理低于检测限的值的方法很重要。根据国际组织的建议,许多风险评估人员采用广泛使用的替代方法来处理左删减数据。韩国国家食品和药物安全评价研究所也推荐了这些方法,目前用于化学接触评估。然而,这些方法有统计上的局限性,国际组织推荐更先进的替代统计方法。在这项研究中,我们评估了目前用于处理未检测的统计方法的有效性。通过仿真研究,确定了最佳方法。在三个案例研究中,我们比较了基于均方根误差的各种方法。为避免异质性,所有案例研究的数据均来自同一来源。在不同的样本量和未检出率中,所有治疗方法的平均值和第95百分位值相似。然而,“对数正态极大似然估计”方法不适合估计平均值。风险评估人员应考虑对监测数据进行统计处理,以减少不确定性。目前使用的替代方法对于非检测率< 80%的大数据集是有效且易于应用的。但是,在某些情况下需要先进的统计方法,并且需要制定关于在风险评估中使用这些方法的国家准则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Attitudes of Lazarski University Medical Students towards Disaster Medicine; Questionnaire Survey Tuberculosis in Regional Australia: Ectopic Pregnancy Complicating Indolent Genital Tract Disease Paricalcitol Ameliorated Dextran-Sulfate-Sodium-Induced Colitis in Mice through MKP-1/P38 MAPK Signaling Pathway Correlation between Count Score and Cardiovascular Events in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients Optimalresistive Force Selection and Upper Body Contribution in the Assessment of Power during High Intensity Cycle Ergometry: An Unresolved Issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1