Probabilistic risk assessment's use of trees and distributions to reflect uncertainty and variability and to overcome the limitations of default assumptions

作者: R.L. Sielken , C. Valdez-Flores

DOI: 10.1016/S0160-4120(99)00053-7

关键词:

摘要: Abstract Probabilistic risk assessment is an emerging approach to exposure and quantitative cancer non-cancer characterizations. The easily extended other types of risks outcomes. A tree, like a decision tree or probability encourages the evaluation not only default assumptions but also alternatives those defaults, reflects uncertainty in current state knowledge. Trees are used both characterization dose received by individuals potential situation dose-response relationship for specified response concern. Probability distributions reflect variability exposure, dose, relationships among over time within individuals. Distributions incorporating variabilities, uncertainties, subjective probabilities, expert judgments characterize probabilities observing individual population with from certain adverse health effect designated (i.e., risk). Some suggestions given on how manager can incorporate distributional into making. discussion included concerning sensitivity analyses path analyses. major finding methodology explicitly variability, uncertainty, defaults dose-response,

参考文章(34)
Paul C. Stern, Harvey V. Fineberg, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society ,(1996)
William Marcus, David Patrick, Susan Perlin, Aggie Revesz, Reva Rubenstein, Jerry Stara, Jeanette Wiltse, Larry Zaragosa, Donald G. Barnes, Michael Dourson, Michael Dourson, Peter Preuss, Donald G. Barnes, Judith Bellin, Christopher Derosa, Reto Engler, Linda Erdreich, Theodore Farber, Penny Fenner-Crisp, Elaine Francis, George Ghali, Richard Hill, Stephanie Irene, Reference dose (RfD): Description and use in health risk assessments Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. ,vol. 8, pp. 471- 486 ,(1988) , 10.1016/0273-2300(88)90047-5
Suresh H. Moolgavkar, Alfred G. Knudson, Mutation and Cancer: A Model for Human Carcinogenesis2 JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. ,vol. 66, pp. 1037- 1052 ,(1981) , 10.1093/JNCI/66.6.1037
Robert L. Sielken, Some issues in the quantitative modeling portion of cancer risk assessment Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. ,vol. 5, pp. 175- 181 ,(1985) , 10.1016/0273-2300(85)90030-3
Jeffrey C. Swartout, Paul S. Price, Michael L. Dourson, Heather L. Carlson‐Lynch, Russell E. Keenan, A Probabilistic Framework for the Reference Dose (Probabilistic RfD) Risk Analysis. ,vol. 18, pp. 271- 282 ,(1998) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.1998.TB01294.X
Martha Crawford, Richard Wilson, Low‐dose linearity: The rule or the exception? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. ,vol. 2, pp. 305- 330 ,(1996) , 10.1080/10807039609383610
R.L. Sielken, D.E. Stevenson, Another Flaw in the Linearized Multistage Model Upper Bounds on Human Cancer Potency Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. ,vol. 19, pp. 106- 114 ,(1994) , 10.1006/RTPH.1994.1009
J.S. Evans, G.M. Gray, R.L. Sielken, A.E. Smith, C. Valdezflores, J.D. Graham, Use of probabilistic expert judgment in uncertainty analysis of carcinogenic potency. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. ,vol. 20, pp. 15- 36 ,(1994) , 10.1006/RTPH.1994.1034