Bayesian Analysis

A Bayes Linear Approach to Weight-of-Evidence Risk Assessment for Skin Allergy

John Paul Gosling, Andy Hart, Helen Owen, Michael Davies, Jin Li, and Cameron MacKay

Full-text: Open access

Abstract

We introduce a strategy for quantifying and synthesising uncertainty about elements of a risk assessment using Bayes linear methods. We view the population of subjective belief structures and the use of Bayes linear adjustments as a flexible and transparent tool for risk assessors who want to quantify their uncertainty about hazard based on disparate sources of information. For motivation, we use an application of the strategy to human skin sensitisation risk assessment where there are many competing sources of information available.

Article information

Source
Bayesian Anal. Volume 8, Number 1 (2013), 169-186.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 4 March 2013

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1362406656

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/13-BA807

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3036258

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1329.62424

Keywords
Bayes linear kinematics Bayes linear methods risk assessment skin sensitisation subjective judgement weight-of-evidence

Citation

Gosling, John Paul; Hart, Andy; Owen, Helen; Davies, Michael; Li, Jin; MacKay, Cameron. A Bayes Linear Approach to Weight-of-Evidence Risk Assessment for Skin Allergy. Bayesian Anal. 8 (2013), no. 1, 169--186. doi:10.1214/13-BA807. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1362406656.


Export citation

References

  • Aleksic, M., Thain, E., Roger, D., Saib, O., Davies, M., Li, J., Aptula, A., and Zazzeroni, R. (2009). “Reactivity Profiling: Covalent Modification of Single Nucleophile Peptides for Skin Sensitization Risk Assessment.” Toxicological Sciences, 108: 401–411.
  • Andersen, K. and Maibach, H. (1985). Contact Allergy Predictive Tests in Guinea Pigs, Current Problems in Dermatology, chapter Guinea pig sensitisation assays: an overview. Chichester: Wiley.
  • Basketter, D. A. (2008). “Skin sensitization: strategies for the assessment and management of risk.” British Journal of Dermatology, 159: 267–273.
  • Basketter, D. A., Dooms-Goossens, A., Karlberg, A., and Lepoittevin, J. (1995). “The chemistry of contact allergy: why is a molecule allergenic?” Contact Dermatitis, 32: 65–73.
  • Chipinda, I., Ajibola, R. O., Morakinyo, M. K., Ruwona, T. B., Simoyi, R. H., and Siegel, P. D. (2010). “Rapid and simple kinetics screening assay for electrophilic dermal sensitizers using nitrobenzenethiol.” Chemical Research in Toxicology, 23: 918–925.
  • Clemen, R. T., Fischer, G. W., and Winkler, R. L. (2000). “Assessing dependence: Some experimental results.” Management Science, 46: 1100–1115.
  • Craig, P. S., Goldstein, M., Seheult, A. H., and Smith, J. A. (1997). “Pressure matching for hydrocarbon reservoirs: A case study in the use of Bayes Linear strategies for large computer experiments.” In Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics III. New York: Springer.
  • Ellison, C. M., Madden, J. C., Judson, P., and Cronin, M. T. D. (2010). “Using In Silico Tools in a Weight of Evidence Approach to Aid Toxicological Assessment.” Molecular Informatics, 29: 97–110.
  • Farrow, M., Goldstein, M., and Spiropoulos, T. (1997). “Developing a Bayes linear decision support system for a brewery.” In The Practice of Bayesian Analysis (eds. S. French and J.Q. Smith), 71–106. London: Arnold.
  • French, S. (2011). “Aggregating Expert Judgement.” Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales, 105: 181–206.
  • Gerberick, G., Vassallo, J., Bailey, R., Chaney, J., Morrall, S., and Lepoittevin, J.-P. (2004). “Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens.” Toxicological Sciences, 81: 332–343.
  • Gerberick, G. F., Ryan, C. A., Kimber, I., Dearman, R. J., Lea, L. J., and Basketter, D. A. (2000). “Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes.” American Journal of Contact Dermatitis, 11: 3–18.
  • Goldstein, M. and Rougier, J. C. (2009). “Reified Bayesian modelling and inference for physical systems.” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 139: 1221–39.
  • Goldstein, M. and Shaw, S. (2004). “Bayes linear kinematics and Bayes linear Bayes graphical models.” Biometrika, 91: 425–446.
  • Goldstein, M. and Wooff, D. A. (2007). Bayes Linear Statistics: Theory and Methods. Chichester: Wiley.
  • Gosling, J. P., Hart, A., Mouat, D., Sabirovic, M., Scanlan, S., and Simmons, A. (2012). “Quantifying experts’ uncertainty about the future cost of exotic diseases.” Risk Analysis, 32: 881–893.
  • Jaworska, J., Gabbert, S., and Aldenberg, T. (2010). “Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: a Bayesian network approach to Integrated Testing Strategies.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 57: 157–167.
  • Jaworska, J., Harol, A., Kern, P. S., and Gerberick, G. F. (2011). “Integrating non-animal test information into an adaptive testing strategy - skin sensitization proof of concept case.” Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 28: 211–225.
  • Jeffrey, R. C. (1983). The Logic of Decision, 2nd ed.. London: University of Chicago Press.
  • O’Hagan, A. (1998). “Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial practical applications.” The Statistician, 47: 21–35.
  • O’Hagan, A., Buck, C. E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, J. E., Garthwaite, P. H., Jenkinson, D., Oakley, J. E., and Rakow, T. (2006). Uncertain judgements: eliciting expert probabilities. Chichester: Wiley.
  • O’Hagan, A., Glennie, E. B., and Beardsall, R. E. (1992). “Subjective modelling and Bayes linear estimation in the UK water industry.” Applied Statistics, 41: 563–577.
  • Owen, H., Hart, A., Aleksic, M., Aptula, A., Davies, M., Gilmour, N., Li, J., MacKay, C., Safford, R., and Gosling, J. (2012). “A weight-of-evidence approach to skin sensitisation hazard identification using Bayesian belief networks.” Technical report, Food and Environment Research Agency. Submitted to Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
  • Revie, M., Bedford, T., and Walls, L. (2010). “Evaluation of elicitation methods to quantify Bayes linear models.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 224: 322–332.
  • Roberts, D. W. and Natsch, A. (2009). “High Throughput Kinetic Profiling Approach for Covalent Binding to Peptides: Application to Skin Sensitization Potency of Michael Acceptor Electrophiles.” Chemical Research in Toxicology, 22: 592–603.
  • Safford, R. (2008). “The Dermal Sensitisation Threshold — A TTC approach for allergic contact dermatitis.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 51: 195–200.
  • Safford, R., Aptula, A., and Gilmour, N. (2011). “Refinement of the Dermal Sensitisation Threshold (DST) approach using a larger dataset and incorporating mechanistic chemistry domains.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 60: 218–224.
  • Schorr, W. (1975). “Cinnamic aldehyde allergy.” Contact Dermatitis, 1: 108–111.
  • Stotts, J. (1980). Current Concepts in Cutaneous Toxicity, chapter Planning, conduct and interpretation of human predicitive sensitisation patch tests. Washington: Academic Press.
  • Suter, G. and Cormiera, S. (2011). “Why and how to combine evidence in environmental assessments: Weighing evidence and building cases.” Science of the Total Environment, 409: 1406–1417.
  • Tokoroyama, T. (2010). “Discovery of the Michael Reaction.” European Journal of Organic Chemistry, 10: 2009–2016.
  • Turner, R., Spiegelhalter, D., Smith, G., and Thompson, S. (2009). “Bias modelling in evidence synthesis.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 172: 23–47.
  • Vysochanskij, D. F. and Petunin, Y. I. (1980). “Justification of the $3\sigma$ rule for unimodal distributions.” Theory of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 21: 25–36.
  • Weed, D. (2005). “Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods.” Risk Analysis, 25: 1545–1557.