Expert judgement in a risk assessment model for Salmonella spp. in pork: the performance of different weighting schemes.

A structured expert judgement study was carried out in order to obtain input parameters for a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) model. This model aimed to estimate the risk of human Salmonella infections associated with the consumption of minced pork meat. Judgements of 11 experts were used to derive subjective probability density functions (PDFs) to quantify the uncertainty on the model input parameters. The performance of experts as probability assessors was measured by the experts' ability to correctly and precisely provide estimates for a set of seed variables (=variables from the experts' area of expertise for which the true values were known to the analyst). Subsequently different weighting schemes or "decision makers" (DMs) were applied using Cooke's classical model in order to obtain combined PDFs as a weighted linear combination of the expert's individual PDFs. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of four DMs namely the equal weight DM (each expert's opinion received equal weight), the user weight DM (weights are determined by the expert's self-perceived level of expertise) and two performance-based DMs: the global weight DM and the item weight DM. Weights in the performance-based DMs were calculated based on the expert's calibration and information performance as measured on the set of seed variables. The item weight DM obtained the highest performance with a calibration score of 0.62 and an information score of 0.52, as compared to the other DMs. The weights of the performance-based DMs outperformed those of the best expert in the panel. The correlation between the scores for self-rating of expertise and the weights based on the experts' performance on the calibration variables was low and not significant (r=0.37, p=0.13). The applied classical model provided a rational basis to use the combined distributions obtained by the item weight DM as input in the QMRA model since this DM yielded generally more informative distributions for the variables of interest than those obtained by the equal weight and user weight DM. Attention should be paid to find adequate and relevant seed variables, since this is important for the validation of the results of the weighting scheme.

[1]  A. A. Dijkhuizen,et al.  Introduction of contagious animal diseases into The Netherlands: elicitation of expert opinions , 1998 .

[2]  Marc Aerts,et al.  Development of a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment for Human Salmonellosis Through Household Consumption of Fresh Minced Pork Meat in Belgium , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  R. Cooke Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science , 1991 .

[4]  Dominiek Maes,et al.  Quantitative risk assessment of human salmonellosis through consumption of pork in Belgium: a modular risk model , 2007 .

[5]  K D C Stärk,et al.  Where should the effort be put to reduce the Salmonella prevalence in the slaughtered swine carcass effectively? , 2005, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[6]  Anne Wingstrand,et al.  Differences and similarities among experts' opinions on Salmonella enterica dynamics in swine pre-harvest. , 2002, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[7]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis , 1999 .

[8]  D. Vose Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide , 2000 .

[9]  Ine H J Van der Fels-Klerx,et al.  Elicitation of Quantitative Data from a Heterogeneous Expert Panel: Formal Process and Application in Animal Health , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  Marieke M. J. W. van Rooij Performance of Expert Judgement Methods with Expert Modelling , 2005 .

[11]  Roland W Scholz,et al.  Combining Experts' Risk Judgments on Technology Performance of Phytoremediation: Self‐Confidence Ratings, Averaging Procedures, and Formative Consensus Building , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Katherine D Walker,et al.  Use of expert judgment in exposure assessment: Part 2. Calibration of expert judgments about personal exposures to benzene , 2003, Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.

[13]  R. Huirne,et al.  Elicitation of expert knowledge on controlling Salmonella in the pork chain , 2002 .

[14]  Evers Eg,et al.  Risk assessment of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichiacoli O157 in steak tartare in the Netherlands , 2001 .

[15]  Moez Sanaa,et al.  Review of the Community Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic agents and Antimicrobial Resistance in the European Union in 2005 Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) and Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2007 .

[16]  H. J. van der Fels-Klerx,et al.  A Structured Expert Judgment Study for a Model of Campylobacter Transmission During Broiler‐Chicken Processing , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  Roger M. Cooke,et al.  TU Delft expert judgment data base , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..