1
ENVH7001
Assignment 2 –Health effect assessment: dose-response models
Due date: 7th May 3pm, online submission via Turnitin.
Assignment
1. Select two or more case studies from EACH of the Dose Response Model Groups listed in
Annex (i.e., minimum two from Group 1 and two from Group 2);
2. Provide a critical review on:
a) A description of the pathogen for which the dose response model was developed
(e.g., mode of transmission, infectivity and disease(s), level of infection, severity of
disease, etc.)
b) The method(s) used to obtain the dose response model(s);
c) A basic description of the statistics and model fits used;
d) Any limitations to the model for use in different human risk assessments and
management applications; and
e) If the dose response model described has been superseded by more up-to-date
model(s) or has superseded an earlier model provide a discussion on what changes
and improvements have been made.
3. Write a report following the instructions below.
Report structure
Maximum 6 pages, excluding references, following the structure below:
1. Executive summary (max. 0.5 pages)
Brief summary of the critical review done in the report and major conclusions.
2. Introduction (max. 1 page)
• Brief introduction to dose response models and their relevance in the health effects
assessment of a QMRA.
• Description of the objectives of the report.
3. Case study description (max. 1.5 pages)
• Summary of the selected papers from each of the Groups, indicating:
• Description of the hazard studied in each of them: the pathogen, mode of
transmission, infectivity and disease, potential sequela investigated in the paper,
level of infection, severity of the disease, etc.
• Description of the data origin (e.g. volunteers, animals, outbreak data) and if tests
were carried out using a wild type, lab strain or surrogate pathogen.
• Description of the method(s) used to obtain the dose response model(s) and a
basic description of the statistics and model fits used.
2
4. Discussion (max. 2.5 pages)
• Critical analysis and discussion, based on the points highlighted above, comparing the
two Groups, as well as aspects for each of the case studies within each Group.
• Discussion of any limitations to the model for use in different human risk assessments
and management applications;
• Compare the two sub-sets of papers (Group 1 vs Group 2) and discuss if the dose response
model described has been superseded by more up-to-date model(s) or has superseded
an earlier model provide a discussion on what changes and improvements have been
made.
5. Conclusions (max. 0.5 pages)
Summing up the main conclusions of the report in regard to the approaches used for
determination of dose-response relationships, and their importance in health effect
assessment and in QMRA.
6. References
Recommend using APA referencing style: https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/referencing/apa7
Marking scheme
Element Marks Excellent (80-100%) Good (60-80%) Average (40-60%) Poor <40%
Executive
summary
10 Effectively summarises all
elements in report
Achieving goal but
poor clarity
Misses parts
but
otherwise
good
summary
Not a summary
Introduction 15 Good introduction, and
clearly describes the
objectives
Some faults in key
points for objective
definition but
otherwise good
introduction
Report objectives not
clearly stated or
serious faults in the
introduction to the
topic
Does not
communicate
with the intent
of report or
completely
misses the
context
of
the
report
Case study
description
25 Papers adequately
selected from each of the
Groups. Excellent analysis
of the case studies.
Good analysis of the
case studies but
some aspects
missing.
Analysis of the case
studies incomplete
and many key aspects
for comparison
missing.
Very incomplete
or incorrect
analysis of the
case studies.
Discussion 35 Critical analysis and
discussion of data
retrieved from the
different case studies
comprehensive and
correct
Critical discussion
misses some of the
key aspects but
generally good.
Critical analysis of the
case studies is
seriously incomplete
or wrong.
Critical analysis
of the case
studies is
inadequate.
Conclusions 10 Conclusions clearly
formulated and
adequately placed within
the big picture.
Moderately clear
conclusions,
contextualised but
not totally clear or
adequately.
Conclusions lack
clarity and/or framing
in the big picture.
Inadequate
conclusions or
contextualisatio
n.
Presentation
overall
5 Limited errors, typos etc.
Report is clearly laid out.
Well integrated.
References correctly
presented.
Minor typos but
well laid out. Few
mistakes in
references.
Inconsistent
sectioning
used.
Report does not flow
well. Many
referencing errors.
Difficult to read
and interpret.
No references or
totally
inadequate or
inconsistent
reference
style.
3
Annex
Please select two or more papers from each group for your assignment. You can find a pdf
copy of each of these papers on Blackboard.
Dose response Model Group 1
Regli et al. 1991. Modelling the risk from Giardia and viruses in drinking water. Journal of the American
Water Works Association. 83:76-84
McCullough, N.; Eisele, C. Experimental human salmonellosis: I. Pathogenicity of strains of Salmonella
meleagridis and Salmonella anatum obtained from spray dried whole egg. J. Infect. Dis. 1951, 88, 278−89.
Dupont, HL (1995) The Infectivity of Cryptosporidium-parvum in Healthy-Volunteers New England Journal
of Medicine. 332(13): 855-859
Medema et al. (1996) Assessment of the dose-response relationship of Campylobacter jejuni.
International Journal of Food Microbiology. 30:101-111.
Dupont et al. (1969)The Response of Man to Virulent Shigella flexneri 2a. J. Infect. Dis., 119, 296−299.
Ward, R. et al. (1986) Human rotavirus studies in volunteers: Determination of infectious dose and
serological response to infection. J. Infect. Dis., 154, 871.
Dose response Model Group 2
Teunis, P. et al. (2010) Dose-response modeling of Salmonella using outbreak data. International Journal
of Food Microbiology. 144(2): 243-249
Teske SS et al. (2011) Animal and Human Dose-Response Models for Brucella Species. Risk Analysis 31(10)
1576-1596
Tamrakar, S et al. (2012) Dose-response model of murine typhus (Rickettsia typhi): time post inoculation
and host age dependency analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases 12(77)
Watanabe, T et al. (2012) Dose-Response Assessment for Influenza A Virus Based on Data Sets of
Infection with its Live Attenuated Reassortants. Risk Analysis 32(3):555-565
Teske, S S.; et al. (2014) Dose-Response Models Incorporating Aerosol Size Dependency for Francisella
tularensis. Risk Analysis 34 (5): 911-928
Watanabe, T. et al. (2014) Classic Dose-Response and Time Postinoculation Models for Leptospira. Risk
Analysis 34(3): 465-484
Brooke, R. J et al. (2017) Use of a Dose-Response Model to Study Temporal Trends in Spatial Exposure to
Coxiella burnetii: Analysis of a Multiyear Outbreak of Q Fever. Zoonoses and Public Health 64(2):118-126
51作业君版权所有
