Carbon Black Risk Assessment Comparison Is Flawed
- UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
- Mark R. Schulz, Assistant Professor (Creator)
- Institution
- The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
- Web Site: http://library.uncg.edu/
Abstract: Although the effort of Valberg and Watson (1996) to incorporate epidemiologic data into an assessment of the plausibility of carcinogenicity estimates is to be commended, their analysis contains a fundamental
flaw. The authors equate comparison of observed rates with expected rates, a common technique in epidemiology, to a comparison of the number of observed events with an expected number of events. The two comparisons are not equivalent. The only circumstance in which they are equivalent is when the same denominator of person-time produces both the observed and the expected events.
Carbon Black Risk Assessment Comparison Is Flawed
PDF (Portable Document Format)
51 KB
Created on 1/1/1997
Views: 1632
Additional Information
- Publication
- Hertz-Picciotto, I., Korte, J., Schulz, M. R. , Chiang, T., & Ball, L. (1997). Carbon black risk assessment comparison is flawed (letter). Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology, 26 (3), 338-339.
- Language: English
- Date: 1997
- Keywords
- Carcinogens, Carbon, Risk Assessment, Evaluation