Simulation-based assessment of model selection criteria during the application of benchmark dose method to quantal response data.

Q1 Mathematics
Keita Yoshii, Hiroshi Nishiura, Kaoru Inoue, Takayuki Yamaguchi, Akihiko Hirose
{"title":"Simulation-based assessment of model selection criteria during the application of benchmark dose method to quantal response data.","authors":"Keita Yoshii,&nbsp;Hiroshi Nishiura,&nbsp;Kaoru Inoue,&nbsp;Takayuki Yamaguchi,&nbsp;Akihiko Hirose","doi":"10.1186/s12976-020-00131-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To employ the benchmark dose (BMD) method in toxicological risk assessment, it is critical to understand how the BMD lower bound for reference dose calculation is selected following statistical fitting procedures of multiple mathematical models. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of various combinations of model exclusion and selection criteria for quantal response data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Simulation-based evaluation of model exclusion and selection processes was conducted by comparing validity, reliability, and other model performance parameters. Three different empirical datasets for different chemical substances were analyzed for the assessment, each having different characteristics of the dose-response pattern (i.e. datasets with rich information in high or low response rates, or approximately linear dose-response patterns).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The best performing criteria of model exclusion and selection were different across the different datasets. Model averaging over the three models with the lowest three AIC (Akaike information criteria) values (MA-3) did not produce the worst performance, and MA-3 without model exclusion produced the best results among the model averaging. Model exclusion including the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in advance of model selection did not necessarily improve the validity and reliability of the models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>If a uniform methodological suggestion for the guideline is required to choose the best performing model for exclusion and selection, our results indicate that using MA-3 is the recommended option whenever applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":51195,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12976-020-00131-w","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12976-020-00131-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: To employ the benchmark dose (BMD) method in toxicological risk assessment, it is critical to understand how the BMD lower bound for reference dose calculation is selected following statistical fitting procedures of multiple mathematical models. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of various combinations of model exclusion and selection criteria for quantal response data.

Methods: Simulation-based evaluation of model exclusion and selection processes was conducted by comparing validity, reliability, and other model performance parameters. Three different empirical datasets for different chemical substances were analyzed for the assessment, each having different characteristics of the dose-response pattern (i.e. datasets with rich information in high or low response rates, or approximately linear dose-response patterns).

Results: The best performing criteria of model exclusion and selection were different across the different datasets. Model averaging over the three models with the lowest three AIC (Akaike information criteria) values (MA-3) did not produce the worst performance, and MA-3 without model exclusion produced the best results among the model averaging. Model exclusion including the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in advance of model selection did not necessarily improve the validity and reliability of the models.

Conclusions: If a uniform methodological suggestion for the guideline is required to choose the best performing model for exclusion and selection, our results indicate that using MA-3 is the recommended option whenever applicable.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

基准剂量法应用于定量反应数据时模型选择准则的模拟评估。
背景:为了将基准剂量(BMD)方法应用于毒理学风险评估,了解如何根据多个数学模型的统计拟合程序选择参考剂量的BMD下限是至关重要的。本研究的目的是比较各种模型排除和选择标准组合对定量反应数据的性能。方法:通过比较模型的效度、信度和其他性能参数,对模型排除和选择过程进行仿真评价。为进行评估,分析了针对不同化学物质的三个不同的经验数据集,每个数据集都具有不同的剂量-反应模式特征(即在高或低反应率或近似线性剂量-反应模式中具有丰富信息的数据集)。结果:不同数据集的模型排除和选择的最佳执行标准不同。对AIC(赤池信息准则)值(MA-3)最低的3个模型进行平均的效果并不差,未排除模型的MA-3在模型平均中效果最好。模型排除包括在模型选择前使用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验并不一定提高模型的效度和信度。结论:如果需要为指南提供统一的方法建议,以选择最佳的排除和选择模型,我们的结果表明,只要适用,建议使用MA-3。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling is an open access peer-reviewed journal adopting a broad definition of "biology" and focusing on theoretical ideas and models associated with developments in biology and medicine. Mathematicians, biologists and clinicians of various specialisms, philosophers and historians of science are all contributing to the emergence of novel concepts in an age of systems biology, bioinformatics and computer modelling. This is the field in which Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling operates. We welcome submissions that are technically sound and offering either improved understanding in biology and medicine or progress in theory or method.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信