Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • Environmental Topics
  • Laws & Regulations
  • Report a Violation
  • About EPA
Risk Assessment
Contact Us

Practical examples of modeling choices and their consequences for risk assessment

On this page:

  • Overview
Although benchmark dose (BMD) modeling has become the preferred approach to identifying a point of departure (POD) over the No Observed Adverse Effect Level, there remain challenges to its application in human health risk assessment. BMD modeling, as currently implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Benchmark Dose Software and the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment’ (RIVM) PROAST software, involves fitting multiple parametric models to animal toxicity data in order to calculate the BMD and its 95% lower confidence level. There is some consistency between the models used in each software platform, but modeling guidance often diverges between EPA and RIVM (and the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA). This presentation will focus on highlighting areas of divergence in modeling guidance and the effect that they have on POD determination. RIVM/EFSA have recently recommended a frequentist approach for model averaging for quantal endpoints, while EPA is currently implementing an alternative approach that utilizes Bayesian methods. While model averaging appears promising for quantal endpoints, the differences between frequentist and Bayesian approaches could potentially lead to differences in POD identification. Of particular focus for this presentation will be the difference in guidance for modeling continuous endpoints, especially choices surrounding the assumption of the distribution of the data (normal vs. lognormal), the benchmark response (BMR) chosen (percent change vs change based on control standard deviation), default vs. biologically-based BMRs, and the model selection framework used to pick the “best” model or model results. Other areas where different modeling methods can affect POD identification will also be covered (modeling clustered data, multi-tumor and time-to-tumor data). Disclaimer: the views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.

Impact/Purpose

This presentation at a continuing education course will highlight differences in modeling guidance between major regulatory agencies in the US and Europe with a goal of informing participants how these differences will affect their dose-response assessments and conclusions.

Citation

Davis, Allen AND Jeff Gift. Practical examples of modeling choices and their consequences for risk assessment. Society of Toxicology Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, March 10 - 14, 2019.
  • Risk Assessment Home
  • About Risk Assessment
  • Risk Recent Additions
  • Human Health Risk Assessment
  • Ecological Risk Assessment
  • Risk Advanced Search
    • Risk Publications
  • Risk Assessment Guidance
  • Risk Tools and Databases
  • Superfund Risk Assessment
  • Where you live
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Last updated on May 11, 2018
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Discover.

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Budget & Performance
  • Contracting
  • EPA www Web Snapshots
  • Grants
  • No FEAR Act Data
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Security Notice

Connect.

  • Data
  • Inspector General
  • Jobs
  • Newsroom
  • Open Government
  • Regulations.gov
  • Subscribe
  • USA.gov
  • White House

Ask.

  • Contact EPA
  • EPA Disclaimers
  • Hotlines
  • FOIA Requests
  • Frequent Questions

Follow.