Statistical Aspects of the Estimation of Human Risks

  • Charles C. Brown
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series


Quantitative risk assessment requires extrapolation from results of experimental assays conducted at high dose levels to predicted effects at lower dose levels which correspond to human exposures. The meaning of this high to low dose extrapolation within an animal species will be discussed, along with its inherent limitations. A number of commonly used mathematical models of dose response necessary for this extrapolation will be discussed and I will comment on the limitations in their ability to provide precise quantitative low-dose risk estimates. These constraints include: the existence of thresholds; incorporation of background, or spontaneous responses; and modification of the dose response by pharmacokinetic processes.


Dose Response Toxic Agent Weibull Model Statistical Aspect Lower Confidence Limit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott, W. S., 1925, A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide, J. Econ. Entomol., 18:265.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, R., and Altschuler, B., 1973, Considerations relating to the formulation of limits for unavoidable population exposures to environmental carcinogens, in: “Radionuclide Carcinogenesis,” p. 233, J. Ballou, R. Busch, D. Mahlum and C. Sanders, eds., AES Symposium Series CONF-720505 NIIS, Springfield, Virginia.Google Scholar
  3. Armitage, P., and Doll, R., 1961, Stochastic models for carcinogenesis, in: “Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. 4,” p. 19, J. Neyman, ed., University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  4. Berkson, J., 1944, The application of the logistic function to bioassay, J. Am. Stat. Assoc, 39:134.Google Scholar
  5. Bliss, C. I., 1935, The calculation of the dosage-mortality curve, Ann, Appl. Biol., 22:134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, C. C., 1976, Mathematical aspects of dose-response studies in carcinogenesis — the concept of thresholds, Oncology, 33:62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, C. C., 1978, Statistical aspects of extrapolation of dichotomous dose response data, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 60:101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, C. C., 1983, Learning about toxicity in humans from studies on animals, CHEMTECH, 13:350.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, C. C., 1984, High to low dose extrapolation of experimental animal carcinogenesis studies, in: “Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research, Development and Testing,” U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Day, N. E., and Brown, C. C., 1980, Multistage models and primary prevention of cancer, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 64:977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Farmer, J. H., Kodell, R. L., Greenman, D. L., and Shaw, G. W., 1980, Dose and time response models for the incidence of bladder and liver neoplasms in mice fed 2-acetylamino-fluorene continuously, J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol., 3:55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Finney, D. J., 1971, “Probit Analysis,” Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, J. C., and Holloman, J. H., 1951, A new hypothesis for the origin of cancer foci, Cancer, 4:916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaddum, J. H., 1933, Methods and biological assay depending on a quantal response, in: “Medical Research Council, Special Report Series No. 183,” London.Google Scholar
  15. Guess, H. A., and Crump, K. S., 1978, Best-estimate low-dose extrapolation of carcinogenicity data, Environ. Health Perspect., 22:149.Google Scholar
  16. Hoel, D. G., 1980, Incorporation of background response in dose-response models, Fed. Proceed., 39:67.Google Scholar
  17. Hoel, D. G., Kaplan, N. L., and Anderson, M. W., 1983, Implications of nonlinear kinetics on risk estimation in carcinogenesis, Science, 219:1032.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Academy of Sciences, 1980, “The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,” National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. Rai, K. and Van Ryzin, J., 1979, Risk assessment of toxic environmental substances using a generalized multi-hit dose response model, in: “Energy and Health,” p. 99, N. Breslow and A. Whittemore, eds., SIAM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  20. Schneiderman, M. A., Mantel, N., and Brown, C. C., 1975, From mouse to man — or how to get from the laboratory to Park Avenue and 59th Street, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 246:237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scientific Committee, Food Safety Council, 1978, Proposed system for food safety assessment, Food and Cosmet. Toxicol., 16, Supplement 2:1.Google Scholar
  22. Tomatis, L., Turusov, V., Day, N., and Charles, R. T., 1972, The effects of long term exposure to DDT on CF-1 mice, Int. J. Cancer, 10:489.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turner, M., 1975, Some classes of hit theory models, Math. Biosci., 23:219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Ryzin, J., 1980, Quantitative risk assessment, J. Occup. Med., 22:321.Google Scholar
  25. Whittemore, A. S., 1977, The age distribution of human cancers for carcinogenic exposures of varying intensity, Am. J. Epidemiol., 106:418.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Worcester, J. and Wilson, E. B., 1943, The determination of LD50 and its sampling error in bioassay, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 29:79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaylor, D.W., 1980, The ED01 Study: Summary and Conclusions, J. Environ. Path. Toxicol. 3:179.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles C. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Biostatistics BranchNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations