{"title":"利用病例对照研究进行流行病学剂量反应评估的基准剂量模型。","authors":"Francesco De Pretis, Yun Zhou, Kan Shao","doi":"10.1111/risa.17671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Following a previous article that focused on integrating epidemiological data from prospective cohort studies into toxicological risk assessment, this paper shifts the focus to case-control studies. Specifically, it utilizes the odds ratio (OR) as the main epidemiological measure, aligning it with the benchmark dose (BMD) methodology as the standard dose-response modeling approach to determine chemical toxicity values for regulatory risk assessment. A standardized BMD analysis framework has been established for toxicological data, including input data requirements, dose-response models, definitions of benchmark response, and consideration of model uncertainty. This framework has been enhanced by recent methods capable of handling both cohort and case-control studies using summary data that have been adjusted for confounders. The present study aims to investigate and compare the \"effective count\" based BMD modeling approach, merged with an algorithm used for converting odds ratio to relative risk in cohort studies with partial data information (i.e., the Wang algorithm), with the adjusted OR-based BMD analysis approach. The goal is to develop an adequate BMD modeling framework that can be generalized for analyzing published case-control study data. As in the previous study, these methods were applied to a database examining the association between bladder and lung cancer and inorganic arsenic exposure. The results indicate that estimated BMDs and BMDLs are relatively consistent across both methods. However, modeling adjusted OR values as continuous data for BMD estimation aligns better with established practices in toxicological BMD analysis, making it a more generalizable approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmark dose modeling for epidemiological dose-response assessment using case-control studies.\",\"authors\":\"Francesco De Pretis, Yun Zhou, Kan Shao\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/risa.17671\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Following a previous article that focused on integrating epidemiological data from prospective cohort studies into toxicological risk assessment, this paper shifts the focus to case-control studies. Specifically, it utilizes the odds ratio (OR) as the main epidemiological measure, aligning it with the benchmark dose (BMD) methodology as the standard dose-response modeling approach to determine chemical toxicity values for regulatory risk assessment. A standardized BMD analysis framework has been established for toxicological data, including input data requirements, dose-response models, definitions of benchmark response, and consideration of model uncertainty. This framework has been enhanced by recent methods capable of handling both cohort and case-control studies using summary data that have been adjusted for confounders. The present study aims to investigate and compare the \\\"effective count\\\" based BMD modeling approach, merged with an algorithm used for converting odds ratio to relative risk in cohort studies with partial data information (i.e., the Wang algorithm), with the adjusted OR-based BMD analysis approach. The goal is to develop an adequate BMD modeling framework that can be generalized for analyzing published case-control study data. As in the previous study, these methods were applied to a database examining the association between bladder and lung cancer and inorganic arsenic exposure. The results indicate that estimated BMDs and BMDLs are relatively consistent across both methods. However, modeling adjusted OR values as continuous data for BMD estimation aligns better with established practices in toxicological BMD analysis, making it a more generalizable approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17671\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17671","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
上一篇文章重点介绍了如何将前瞻性队列研究的流行病学数据纳入毒理学风险评估,本文将重点转向病例对照研究。具体来说,本文采用了几率比(OR)作为主要的流行病学测量方法,并将其与基准剂量(BMD)方法相结合,将其作为标准的剂量-反应建模方法,用于确定监管风险评估中的化学毒性值。目前已为毒理学数据建立了标准化的基准剂量分析框架,包括输入数据要求、剂量-反应模型、基准反应定义以及对模型不确定性的考虑。最近的一些方法对这一框架进行了改进,这些方法能够使用经过混杂因素调整的汇总数据来处理队列研究和病例对照研究。本研究旨在调查和比较基于 "有效计数 "的 BMD 建模方法,该方法与用于在具有部分数据信息的队列研究中将几率比例转换为相对风险的算法(即 Wang 算法)相结合,并与基于调整 OR 的 BMD 分析方法相结合。目的是建立一个适当的 BMD 建模框架,该框架可用于分析已发表的病例对照研究数据。与之前的研究一样,这些方法被应用于一个数据库,该数据库研究了膀胱癌和肺癌与无机砷暴露之间的关系。结果表明,两种方法估计的 BMD 和 BMDL 相对一致。不过,将调整后的 OR 值作为连续数据建模来估算 BMD 更符合毒理学 BMD 分析的既定做法,因此是一种更具普遍性的方法。
Benchmark dose modeling for epidemiological dose-response assessment using case-control studies.
Following a previous article that focused on integrating epidemiological data from prospective cohort studies into toxicological risk assessment, this paper shifts the focus to case-control studies. Specifically, it utilizes the odds ratio (OR) as the main epidemiological measure, aligning it with the benchmark dose (BMD) methodology as the standard dose-response modeling approach to determine chemical toxicity values for regulatory risk assessment. A standardized BMD analysis framework has been established for toxicological data, including input data requirements, dose-response models, definitions of benchmark response, and consideration of model uncertainty. This framework has been enhanced by recent methods capable of handling both cohort and case-control studies using summary data that have been adjusted for confounders. The present study aims to investigate and compare the "effective count" based BMD modeling approach, merged with an algorithm used for converting odds ratio to relative risk in cohort studies with partial data information (i.e., the Wang algorithm), with the adjusted OR-based BMD analysis approach. The goal is to develop an adequate BMD modeling framework that can be generalized for analyzing published case-control study data. As in the previous study, these methods were applied to a database examining the association between bladder and lung cancer and inorganic arsenic exposure. The results indicate that estimated BMDs and BMDLs are relatively consistent across both methods. However, modeling adjusted OR values as continuous data for BMD estimation aligns better with established practices in toxicological BMD analysis, making it a more generalizable approach.
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include:
• Human health and safety risks
• Microbial risks
• Engineering
• Mathematical modeling
• Risk characterization
• Risk communication
• Risk management and decision-making
• Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics
• Laws and regulatory policy
• Ecological risks.