Shape and steepness of toxicological dose–response relationships of continuous endpoints

References

• Appel MJ. (2001). Sub-acute (28-day) oral toxicity study with 1,4-dichlorobenzene in rats, TNO-report V3219, TNO Nutrition and Food research, Zeist, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Crump KS. (1984). A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam Appl Toxicol, 4, 854–71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Jong W, Van Och FMM, Den Hartog Jager CF, et al. (2002). Ranking of allergenic potency of rubber chemicals in a modified local lymph node assay. Toxicol Sci 2002, 66, 226–32
   Google Scholar
• De Jong WH, Van Der Ven LTM, Sleijffers A, et al. (2013). Systemic and immunotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in an intravenous 28 days repeated dose toxicity study in rats. Biomaterials, 34, 8333--43
   Google Scholar
• EFSA. (2009). European Food Safety Authority. Guidance of the scientific committee on use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J, 1150, 1–72
   Google Scholar
• Elhajouji A, Van Hummelen P, Kirsch-Volders M. (1995). Indications for a threshold of chemically-induced aneuploidy in vitro in human lymphocytes. Environ Mol Mutagen, 26, 292–304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faes C, Geys H, Aerts M, Molenberghs G. (2003). Use of fractional polynomials for dose–response modelling and quantitative risk assessment in developmental toxicity studies. Statistical Modelling, 3, 109–25
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genschow E, Spielmann H, Scholz G, et al. (2002). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro embryotoxicity tests: results of the definitive phase and evaluation of prediction models. Altern Lab Anim, 30, 151–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guha N, Roy A, Kopylev L, Fox J, et al. (2013). Nonparametric Bayesian methods for benchmark dose estimation. Risk Anal, 33, 1608--19
   Google Scholar
• IPCS (2009). Environmental Health Criteria, 239, Principles for Modelling Dose–response for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals. Geneva: WHO Press
   Google Scholar
• Moerbeek M, Piersma AH, Slob W. (2003). A comparison of three methods for calculating confidence intervals for the benchmark dose. Risk Anal, 24, 31–40
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peto R, Gray R, Brantom P, Grasso P. (1991a). Effects on 4080 rats of chronic ingestion of N-nitrosodiethylamine or N-nitrosodimethylamine: a detailed dose–response study. Cancer Res, 51, 6415–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peto R, Gray R, Brantom P, Grasso P. (1991b). Dose and time relationships for tumor induction in the liver and esophagus of 4080 inbred rats by chronic ingestion of N-nitrosodiethylamine or N-nitrosodiemtylamine. Cancer Res, 51, 6452–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piersma AH, Verhoef A, te Biesebeek JD, et al. (2000). Developmental toxicity of butyl benzyl phtalate in the rat using a multiple dose study design. Reprod Toxicol, 14, 417–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piersma AH, Janer G, Wolterink G, et al. (2008). Quantitative extrapolation of in vitro whole embryo culture embryotoxicity data to developmental toxicity in vivo using the Benchmark Dose approach. Toxicol Sci, 101, 91–100
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shao K, Gift JS, Setzer RW. (2013). Is the assumption of normality or log-normality for continuous response data critical for benchmark dose estimation? Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 272, 767--79
   Google Scholar
• Slob W. (2002). Dose–response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol Sci, 66, 298–312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slob W. (2007). What is a practical threshold? Toxicol Pathol, 35, 848–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stern BR, Solioz M, Krewski D, et al. (2007). Copper and human health: biochemistry, genetics and strategies for modeling dose–response relationships. J Toxicol Environ Health B, 10, 157–222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US EPA (2002). Revised Organophosphorus Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment. Office of the Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C
   Google Scholar
• US EPA (2011). Benchmark Dose Software (BMDS). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/bmds
   Google Scholar
• US EPA (2012). Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/benchmarkdose.htm
   Google Scholar
• Van Och FMM, Slob W, De Jong, WH, et al. (2000). A quantitative method for assessing the sensitizing potency of low molecular chemicals using a local lymph node assay: employment of a regression method that includes determination of the uncertainty margins. Toxicology, 146, 49–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. (2007). Properties of model-averaged BMDLs: a study of model averaging in dichotomous response risk estimation. Risk Anal, 27, 659–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. (2008). Model averaging software for dichotomous dose response risk estimation. J Statist Software, 26, 1–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler MW, Bailer AJ. (2012). Monotonic Bayesian semiparametric benchmark dose analysis. Risk Anal, 32, 1207–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woutersen RA, Jonker D, Stevenson H, et al. (2001). The benchmark approach applied to a 28-day toxicity study with rhodorsil silane in rats: the impact of increasing the number of dose groups. Food Chem Toxicol, 39, 697–707
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar