This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sielken, R. L Articles by Stevenson, D. E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sielken, R. L, Jr Articles by Stevenson, D. E Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Some implications for quantitative risk assessment if hormesis exists

Sielken, Inc., 3833 Texas Avenue, Suite 230, Bryan, Texas

Donald E Stevenson

Dermigen Consulting Group, Inc., P.O. Box 727, 908 NE 3rd Street (Loop 230), Smithville, 78957, Texas, USA

The existence of hormesis should impact quantitative risk assessment in at least seven fundamental ways. (1) The dose-reponse models for bioassay and epidemiological data should have greater flexibility to fit the observed shape of the dose-response data and no longer be forced to always be linearly increasing at low doses. (2) Experimental designs should be altered to provide greater opportunity to identify the hormetic component of a dose-response relationship. (3) Rather than a lifetime average daily dose or its analog for shorter time periods, dose scales or metrics should be used that reflect the age or time dependence of the dose level. (4) Low-dose risk characterization should include the likelihood of bene-ficial effects and the likelihood that a dose level has reasonable certainty of no appreciable adverse health effects. (5) Exposure assessments should make greater efforts to characterize the distribution of actual doses from exposure rather than just upper bounds. (6) Uncertainty characterizations should be expanded to include both upper and lower bounds, and there should be an increased explicit use of expert judgement and weight-of-evidence based distributional analyses reflecting more of the available relevant dose-response information and alternative risk characterizations. (7) Risk should be characterized in terms of the net effect of a dose on health rather than a dose's effect on a single factor affecting health - for example, risk would be better expressed in terms of mortality from all causes combined rather than a specific type of fatal disease.

Key Words: hormesis • dose-response modeling • experimental designs • dose scales • exposure assessment • risk characterization

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 17, No. 5, 259-262 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/096032719801700508


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. W. Gaylor, W. K. Lutz, and R. B. Conolly Statistical Analysis of Nonmonotonic Dose-Response Relationships: Research Design and Analysis of Nasal Cell Proliferation in Rats Exposed to Formaldehyde Toxicol. Sci., January 1, 2004; 77(1): 158 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S R Poulter Comments on "legal implications of hormesis" Human and Experimental Toxicology, March 1, 2001; 20(3): 151 - 153. [PDF]

				D E Stevenson and R L Sielken Jr Are calories responsible for a decline in longevity? Human and Experimental Toxicology, June 1, 2000; 19(6): 348 - 350. [PDF]