A Bayesian hierarchical model for risk assessment of methylmercury

Editor’s Invited Article

Abstract

This article uses a Bayesian hierarchical model to quantify the adverse health effects associated with in-utero exposure to methylmercury. By allowing for study-to-studyas well as outcome-to-outcome variability, the approach provides a useful meta-analytic tool for multi-outcome, multi-study environmental risk assessments. The analysis presented here expands on the findings of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee, charged with advising the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on an appropriate approach to conducting a risk assessment for methylmercury. The NAS committee, for which the senior author (Ryan) was a committee member, reviewed the findings from several conflicting studies and reported the results from a Bayesian hierarchical model that synthesized information across several studies and for several outcomes. Although the NAS committee did not suggest that the hierarchical model be used as the actual basis for a methylmercury risk assessment, the results from the model were used to justify and support the final recommendation that the risk analysis be based on data from a study conducted in the Faroe Islands, which had found a positive association between in-utero exposure to methylmercury and impaired neurological development. We considera variety of statistical issues, but particularly sensitivity to model specification.

Key Words

Benchmark dose Dose-response Gibbs sampling Linear mixed model Meta-analysis Multiple outcomes Win BUGS 

References

  1. Arends, L., Voko, Z., and Stijnen, T. (2003), “Combining Multiple Outcome Measures in a Meta-analysis: An Application,” Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1335–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banga, S. J., Patil, G. P., and Taillie, C. (2000), “Sensitivity of Normal Theory Methods to Model Misspecification in the Calculation of Upper Confidence Limits on the Risk Function for Continuous Responses,” Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 7, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. — (2002), “Direct Calculation of Likelihood-based Benchmark Dose Levels for Quantitative Responses,” Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 9, 295–315.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkey, C., Hoaglin, D., Motseller, F., and Colditz, G. (1995), “A Random Effects Regression Model for Meta-analysis,” Statistics in Medicine, 14, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkey, C. S., Hoaglin, D. C., Antczak-Bouckoms, A., Mosteller, F., and Colditz, G. A. (1998), “Meta-analysis of Multiple Outcomes by Regression with Random Effects,” Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2537–2550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosch, R. J., Wypij, D., and Ryan, L. M. (1996), “A Semiparametric Approach to Risk Assessment for Quantitative Outcomes,” Risk Analysis, 16, 657–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budtz-Jorgensen, E., Keiding, N., Grandjean, P. (2001), “Benchmark Dose Calculation from Epidemiological Data,” Biometrics, 57, 698–706.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Coull, B. A., Hobert, J. P., Ryan, L. M., and Holmes, L. B. (2001), “Crossed Random Effect Models for Multiple Outcomes in a Study of Teratogenesis,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 1194–1204.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Crump, K. S. (1984), “A New Method for Determining Allowable Daily Intakes,” Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 4, 854–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. — (1995), “Calculation of Benchmark Doses from Continuous Data,” Risk Analysis, 15, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crump, K. S., Kjellstrom, T., Shipp, A. M., Silvers, A., and Stewart, A. (1998), “Influence of Prenatal Mercury Exposure Upon Scholastic and Psychological Test Performance: Benchmark Analysis of a New Zealand Cohort,” Risk Analysis, 18, 701–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crump K. S., Van Landingham, C., Shamlaye, C., Cox, C., Davidson, P. W., Myers, G. J., Clarkson, T. W. (2000), “Benchmark Concentrations for Methylmercury Obtained from the Seychelles Child Development Study,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniels, M., and Kass, R. (1998), “A Note on First-stage Approximation in Two-stage Hierarchical Models,” Sankltya B, 60, 19–30.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidson, P. W., Myers, G. J., Cox, C., Axtell, C., Shamlaye, C., Sloane-Reeves, J., Cernichiari, E., Needham, L., Choi, A., Wang, Y., Berlin, M., and Clarkson, T. W. (1998), “Effects of Prenatal and Postnatal Methylmercury Exposure from Fish Consumption on Neurodevelopment: Outcomes at 66 Months of Age in the Seychelles Child Development Study,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 701–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DerSimonian, R., and Laird, N. (1986), “Meta-analysis in Clinical Trials,” Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dominici, F., Samet, J. M., and Zeger, S. L. (2000), “Combining Evidence on Air Pollution and Daily Mortality from the 20 Largest US Cities: A Hierarchical Modelling Strategy” (with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 163, 263–284.Google Scholar
  17. Gaylor, D. W., and Slikker, W. (1992), “Risk Assessment for Neurotoxicants,” in Neurotoxicology, eds. H. Tilson and C. Mitchell, New York: Raven Press, pp. 341–353.Google Scholar
  18. Gelfand, A. E., Sahu, S. K., and Carlin, B. P. (1995), “Efficient Parameterisations for Normal Linear Mixed Models,” Biometrika, 82, 479–488.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert, S. G., and Grantwebster, K. S. (1995), “Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Methylmercury Exposure,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 103, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grandjean, P., Weihe, P., White, R. F., Debes, F., Araki, S., Yokoyama, K., Murata, K., Sorensen, N., Dahl, R., and Jorgensen, P. J. (1997), “Cognitive Deficit in 7-year-old Children with Prenatal Exposure to Methy Imercury,” Neurotoxicological Teratology, 19, 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan, B. J. T. (1992), Analysis of Quantal Response Data, London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Myers, G. J., Davidson, P. W., Cox, C., Shamlaye, C. F., Tanner, M. A., Choisy, O., Sloane-Reeves, J., Marsh, D. O., Cernichiari, E., Choi, A., Berlin, M., and Clarkson, T. W. (1995), “Neurodevelopmental Outcomes of Seychellois Children Sixty-six Months After in Utero Exposure to Methy Imercury from a Maternal Fish Diet: Pilot Study,” Neurotoxicology, 16, 639–652.Google Scholar
  23. Natarajan, R., and Kass, R. E. (2000), “Reference Bayesian Methods for Generalized Lineralized Linear Mixed Models,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 227–237.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1992), Combining Information: Statistical Issues and Opportunities for Research, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. — (2000), Health Effects of Methylmercury, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Simmons, S. J., Piegorsch, W. W., Nitcheva, D., and Zeiger, E. (2003), “Combining Environmental Information via Hierarchical Modeling: An Example Using Mutagenic Potencies,” Environmetrics, 14, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., and Best, N. (2000), Win BUGS Version 1.3 User’s Manual, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge; http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs.Google Scholar
  28. Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., and van der Linde, A. (2002), “Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit” (with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 64, 583–640.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Houwelingen, H. C., Arends, L., and Stijnen, T. (1998), “Advanced Methods in Meta-analysis: Multivariate Approach and Meta-regression,” Statistics in Medicine, 21, 589–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Watanabe, C., and Satoh, H. (1996), “Evolution of Our Understanding of Methylmercury as a Health Threat,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 104, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. West, R. W., and Kodell, R. L. (1993), “Statistical Methods of Risk Assessment for Continuous Variables,” Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 22, 3363–3376.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brent A. Coull
    • 1
  • Maura Mezzetti
    • 2
  • Louise M. Ryan
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiostatisticsHarvard School of Public HealthBoston
  2. 2.Istitutodi Metodi QuantitativiUniversità BocconiMilanoItaly
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistical ScienceHarvard School of Public Health and Data Farber Cancer InstituteBoston

Personalised recommendations