Standardizing Benchmark Dose Calculations to Improve Science-Based Decisions in Human Health Assessments

Background: Benchmark dose (BMD) modeling computes the dose associated with a prespecified response level. While offering advantages over traditional points of departure (PODs), such as no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs), BMD methods have lacked consistency and transparency in application, interpretation, and reporting in human health assessments of chemicals. Objectives: We aimed to apply a standardized process for conducting BMD modeling to reduce inconsistencies in model fitting and selection. Methods: We evaluated 880 dose–response data sets for 352 environmental chemicals with existing human health assessments. We calculated benchmark doses and their lower limits [10% extra risk, or change in the mean equal to 1 SD (BMD/L10/1SD)] for each chemical in a standardized way with prespecified criteria for model fit acceptance. We identified study design features associated with acceptable model fits. Results: We derived values for 255 (72%) of the chemicals. Batch-calculated BMD/L10/1SD values were significantly and highly correlated (R2 of 0.95 and 0.83, respectively, n = 42) with PODs previously used in human health assessments, with values similar to reported NOAELs. Specifically, the median ratio of BMDs10/1SD:NOAELs was 1.96, and the median ratio of BMDLs10/1SD:NOAELs was 0.89. We also observed a significant trend of increasing model viability with increasing number of dose groups. Conclusions: BMD/L10/1SD values can be calculated in a standardized way for use in health assessments on a large number of chemicals and critical effects. This facilitates the exploration of health effects across multiple studies of a given chemical or, when chemicals need to be compared, providing greater transparency and efficiency than current approaches. Citation: Wignall JA, Shapiro AJ, Wright FA, Woodruff TJ, Chiu WA, Guyton KZ, Rusyn I. 2014. Standardizing benchmark dose calculations to improve science-based decisions in human health assessments. Environ Health Perspect 122:499–505; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307539

[1]  K S Crump,et al.  A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. , 1984, Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[2]  Ivan Rusyn,et al.  Assessment of beating parameters in human induced pluripotent stem cells enables quantitative in vitro screening for cardiotoxicity. , 2013, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[3]  Thorsten Meinl,et al.  KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner , 2007, GfKl.

[4]  D. Barnes,et al.  Reference dose (RfD): description and use in health risk assessments. , 1988, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[5]  David Weininger,et al.  SMILES. 2. Algorithm for generation of unique SMILES notation , 1989, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[6]  John R. Bucher,et al.  Conflicting Views on Chemical Carcinogenesis Arising from the Design and Evaluation of Rodent Carcinogenicity Studies , 2007, Environmental health perspectives.

[7]  Wout Slob,et al.  A statistical evaluation of toxicity study designs for the estimation of the benchmark dose in continuous endpoints. , 2005, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[8]  Daniel Krewski,et al.  A Signal-to-Noise Crossover Dose as the Point of Departure for Health Risk Assessment , 2011, Environmental health perspectives.

[9]  Kim Z Travis,et al.  The role of the benchmark dose in a regulatory context. , 2005, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[10]  Jonathan I Levy,et al.  Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[11]  Salomon Sand,et al.  The point of transition on the dose‐effect curve as a reference point in the evaluation of in vitro toxicity data , 2012, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[12]  Anna M. Fan,et al.  Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment , 2005 .

[13]  P. Stolpman,et al.  Environmental Protection Agency , 2020, The Grants Register 2022.

[14]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Trust, But Verify: On the Importance of Chemical Structure Curation in Cheminformatics and QSAR Modeling Research , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  Jeffrey S Gift,et al.  Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA's benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1. , 2011, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[16]  Michigan.,et al.  Toxicological profile for dichloropropenes , 2008 .

[17]  Elaine M. Faustman,et al.  Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity , 1994 .

[18]  C. Kimmel,et al.  Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity. II. Comparison of generic benchmark dose estimates with no observed adverse effect levels. , 1994, Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[19]  B C Allen,et al.  Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity. III. Statistical models. , 1994, Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[20]  Salomon Sand,et al.  The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment , 2008, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[21]  Kenny S. Crump,et al.  Calculation of Benchmark Doses from Continuous Data , 1995 .

[22]  Alan W. Brown,et al.  Current State , 2019, ECE Energy Series.

[23]  Division on Earth.  Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process , 1983 .

[24]  R. Hertzberg,et al.  A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. , 1986, Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology.