National Academies Press: OpenBook

Issues in Risk Assessment (1993)

Chapter: 3.4 Model Dependency

« Previous: 3.3 Analytical Correlations
Suggested Citation:"3.4 Model Dependency." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×

To explore the extent to which this result is influenced by sample size, similar calculations were performed for a series of experiments with sample sizes ranging from n=50 to n=1000 animals per group (Table 1). These results indicate that the correlation between the log10(TD 50) and the log10(MTD) remains high, even at the larger sample sizes for which the allowable range of potency values becomes much wider. Even in the limiting case of n = ∞, we have ρ = 0.944 (see annex D).

3.4 Model Dependency

Bernstein et al. (1985), Crouch et al. (1987), and Reith and Starr (1989ab) all used a one-stage model to characterize the carcinogenic potency. The one-stage model does not accommodate the majority of dose-response curves which exhibit curvilinearity. Kodell et al. (1990) argue that this limits the range of estimates of potency, and so artificially increases the correlation between the estimates of potency and the

TABLE 1 Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose as a Function of Sample Sizea

Sample Size n

Range of Experimental Outcomes, x/n

Range of Potency Estimates (upper limit ÷ lower limit)

Correlationc

Minimum

Maximum

50

0.200

0.98

32

0.965

100

0.150

0.99

79

0.957

500

0.122

0.998

247

0.950

1000

0.116

0.999

349

0.949

b

0.1

1.0

0.944

aBased on a one-stage model and the assumptions in annex D.

bLimiting case as n → ∞.

cρ=Corr(logTD50,log10MTD)

Suggested Citation:"3.4 Model Dependency." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×

MTD. Under the one-stage model, the potency ß is related to the dose D = MTD and the added risk R(D) by

For a population of chemicals, this relationship provides a linear regression of logeß versus loge(1/D) with a slope of unity. The error term, loge[-loge(1 - R(D))], expresses the variation in R(D). Since the extra risk at the MTD is likely to fall in the range of 0.10 to 0.98, the variation about 1/MTD is limited to a range of approximately loge[-loge(1 - 0.10)] = -2.25 to loge[-loge(1 - 0.98)] = 1.36. This corresponds to the approximate 30-fold range noted by Bernstein et al. (1985). Using (2.3), the relationship in (3.3) may be re-expressed as

so that the TD50 is restricted to this same range.

Kodell et al. (1990) suggest relaxing the linear restraints of the one-stage model and using the Weibull model in (2.5) to accommodate curvature. The Weibull model includes the one-stage model as a special case when k = 1. The TD50 and MTD are related by

where k varies from chemical to chemical to accommodate either convexity (upward curvature, k > 1) or concavity (downward curvature, k < 1) in dose-response. This permits additional variation and reduces the correlation between loge(TD50) and loge (MTD) obtained with k fixed at unity. Bailar et al. (1988) demonstrate that an appreciable portion of the National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program bioassays exhibit downward curvature (k < 1) (cf. Williams & Portier, 1992). Clearly, the one-stage model limits the values of potency estimates to a rather narrow range determined by the MTD, which contributes to the observed correlation between loge(TD50) and loge (MTD). We expect that the MTD will still be highly correlated with the TD50 derived from a Weibull model, although the degree of correlation will be somewhat less than is observed with the one-stage model.

This expectation is confirmed by the correlation coefficients between

Suggested Citation:"3.4 Model Dependency." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"3.4 Model Dependency." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×
Page 129
Next: 3.5 Genotoxic vs. Nongenotoxic Carcinogens »
Issues in Risk Assessment Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The scientific basis, inference assumptions, regulatory uses, and research needs in risk assessment are considered in this two-part volume.

The first part, Use of Maximum Tolerated Dose in Animal Bioassays for Carcinogenicity, focuses on whether the maximum tolerated dose should continue to be used in carcinogenesis bioassays. The committee considers several options for modifying current bioassay procedures.

The second part, Two-Stage Models of Carcinogenesis, stems from efforts to identify improved means of cancer risk assessment that have resulted in the development of a mathematical dose-response model based on a paradigm for the biologic phenomena thought to be associated with carcinogenesis.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!