Search

Your search keyword '"Edler, Lutz"' showing total 819 results
Start Over Author "Edler, Lutz"
819 results on '"Edler, Lutz"'

1. Computational statistics and biometry: which discipline drives which?

Author

Edler, Lutz

Subjects
history, computational statistics, statistical analysis systems, German region, International Biometric Society, Reisensburg, Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics, R858-859.7, Infectious and parasitic diseases, RC109-216
Abstract

A biometrician's work is defined through the biological or medical problem and the mathematical and statistical methods needed for its solution. This requires in most instances statistical data analysis and the use of methods of computational statistics. At first, it seems quite obvious that the computational needs of the biometric problem determine what has to be developed by the discipline of computational statistics. However, viewing the development of biometry and computational statistics in Germany for the past decades in more details reveals an interesting interaction between the activities of the German Region of the International Biometric Society and groups engaged in computational statistics within Germany. Exact methods of statistical inference and permutation tests, simulations and the use of the Bootstrap, and interactive graphical statistical methods are examples of this fruitful reciprocal benefit. This contribution examines therefore relationships between the historical development of biometry and computational statistics in Germany using as sources of information contributions to the scientific literature, presentations and sessions at scientific conferences on biometry and on computational statistics which influenced the development of both disciplines and exhibits a reciprocal dependency. The annual workshops organized on the Reisensburg now for more than 30 years are recognized as an outstanding factor of this interrelationship. This work aims at the definition of the present status of computational statistics in the German Region of the International Biometric Society and intends to guide and to foster the discussion of the future development of this discipline among biometricians.

Published
2005

12. Grundlagen der gastrointestinalen Tumorerkrankungen

Author

Schmelzle, Moritz, Jonas, Sven, Strumberg, Dirk, Kaufmann, Astrid, Aretz, Stefan, Pietsch, Uta-Carolin, Kaisers, Udo X., Monz, Katharina, Hartmann, Karl-Axel, Hübner, Jutta, Lordick, Florian, Raida, Martin, Winter, Andreas, Burkholder, Iris, Edler, Lutz, Erckenbrecht, J.F., editor, and Jonas, Sven, editor

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Immunologic Findings in Workers Formerly Exposed to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin and Its Congeners

Author

Jung, Detlev, Berg, Peter A., Edler, Lutz, Ehrenthal, Wolfram, Fenner, Dietrich, Flesch-Janys, Dieter, Huber, Christoph, Klein, Reinhild, Koitka, Christina, Lucier, George, Manz, Alfred, Muttray, Axel, Needham, Larry, Päpke, Olaf, Pietsch, Michael, Portier, Christopher, Patterson, Donald, Prellwitz, Winfried, Rose, Dirk M., Thews, Anne, and Konietzko, Johannes

Published
1998
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Guidance on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment

Author

EFSA Scientific Committee, More, Simon John, Bampidis, Vasileios, Benford, Diane, Bragard, Claude, Halldorsson, Thorhallur Ingi, Hernández-Jerez, Antonio F, Bennekou, Susanne Hougaard, Koutsoumanis, Kostas, Lambré, Claude, Machera, Kyriaki, Mennes, Wim, Mullins, Ewen, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Schrenk, Dieter, Turck, Dominique, Younes, Maged, Aerts, Marc, Edler, Lutz, Sand, Salomon, Wright, Matthew, Binaglia, Marco, Bottex, Bernard, Abrahantes, Jose Cortiñas, and Schlatter, Josef

Subjects
NOAEL, dose–response modelling, BMD, Veterinary (miscellaneous), Bayesian model averaging, Animal Science and Zoology, Parasitology, Plant Science, BMD software, benchmark response, Microbiology, BMDL, Food Science
Abstract

The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). The major change compared to the previous Guidance (EFSA SC, 2017) concerns the Section 2.5, in which a change from the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm is recommended. In the former, uncertainty about the unknown parameters is measured by confidence and significance levels, interpreted and calibrated under hypothetical repetition, while probability distributions are attached to the unknown parameters in the Bayesian approach, and the notion of probability is extended to reflect uncertainty of knowledge. In addition, the Bayesian approach can mimic a learning process and reflects the accumulation of knowledge over time. Model averaging is again recommended as the preferred method for estimating the BMD and calculating its credible interval. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed and amended so that there is now a single set of models for quantal and continuous data. The flow chart guiding the reader step-by-step when performing a BMD analysis has also been updated, and a chapter comparing the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm inserted. Also, when using Bayesian BMD modelling, the lower bound (BMDL) is to be considered as potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re-evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 or 2017 Guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly lower (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health-based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the wide application of the BMD approach.

Published
2022

36. Risk from Low-Dose Exposures

Author

Monro, A. M., Portier, Christopher J., Lucier, George W., Edler, Lutz, Zendzian, Robert P., Fox, Maurice, Meselson, Matthew, Strauss, Bernard S., von Borstel, R. C., and Ennemose, Oswald

Published
1994

38. Guidance on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment.

Author

More, Simon John, Bampidis, Vasileios, Benford, Diane, Bragard, Claude, Halldorsson, Thorhallur Ingi, Hernández‐Jerez, Antonio F, Bennekou, Susanne Hougaard, Koutsoumanis, Kostas, Lambré, Claude, Machera, Kyriaki, Mennes, Wim, Mullins, Ewen, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Schrenk, Dieter, Turck, Dominique, Younes, Maged, Aerts, Marc, Edler, Lutz, Sand, Salomon, and Wright, Matthew

Subjects
RISK assessment, DISTRIBUTION (Probability theory), FLOW charts, PROBABILITY theory, DEFAULT (Finance)
Abstract

The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL) approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). The major change compared to the previous Guidance (EFSA SC, 2017) concerns the Section 2.5, in which a change from the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm is recommended. In the former, uncertainty about the unknown parameters is measured by confidence and significance levels, interpreted and calibrated under hypothetical repetition, while probability distributions are attached to the unknown parameters in the Bayesian approach, and the notion of probability is extended to reflect uncertainty of knowledge. In addition, the Bayesian approach can mimic a learning process and reflects the accumulation of knowledge over time. Model averaging is again recommended as the preferred method for estimating the BMD and calculating its credible interval. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed and amended so that there is now a single set of models for quantal and continuous data. The flow chart guiding the reader step‐by‐step when performing a BMD analysis has also been updated, and a chapter comparing the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm inserted. Also, when using Bayesian BMD modelling, the lower bound (BMDL) is to be considered as potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re‐evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 or 2017 Guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly lower (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health‐based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the wide application of the BMD approach. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7585/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results