Categorical assessment

Under this clause, a short discussion on risk frequency, categorization, assessment, etc. shall be highlighted (based on CCOHS and British standard), whereas details for all these are available in subsequent discussions. 

Numerous qualitative approaches to risk assessment have been employed. Some sample categorizations follow. Health risks may be divided into risk levels as provided below ... 

Environmental assessment or request for categorical exclusion Statements of claimed exclusivity and associated certifications b Prescribing information 0. Annotated labeling text d. Labeling comparison (for ANDA)... 

Example 57 The three files can be used to assess the risk structure for a given set of parameters and either four, five, or six repeat measurements that go into the mean. At the bottom, there is an indicator that shows whether the 95% confidence limits on the mean are both within the set limits ( YES ) or not ( NO ). Now, for an uncertainty in the drug/weight ratio of 1%, a weight variability of 2%, a measurement uncertainty of 0.4%, and fi 3.5% from the nearest specification limit, the ratio of OOS measurements associated with YES as opposed to those associated with NO was found to be 0 50 (n == 4), 11 39 (n = 5), respectively 24 26 (u = 6). This nicely illustrates that it is possible for a mean to be definitely inside some limit and to have individual measurements outside the same limit purely by chance. In a simulation on the basis of 1000 sets of n - 4 numbers e ND(0, 1), the Xmean. Sx, and CL(Xmean) were calculated, and the results were categorized according to the following criteria ... 

In this phase of the risk assessment, the validity and reliability of conclusions and advice to risk managers depend on the quality, reliability, and relevance of available exposure data. Therefore it is necessary to (1) critically review the facts from food composition tables and the reasons for differences reported by and within countries, (2) consider the way foods are categorized and thus made comparable (or not) in food consumption surveys, and (3) explore how to refine assessments as more information becomes available. ... 

There are two common systems for categorizing patients with HF. The New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification (FC) system is based on the patient s activity level and exercise tolerance. It divides patients into one of four classes, with functional class I patients exhibiting no symptoms or limitations of daily activities, and functional class IV patients who are symptomatic at rest (Table 3-5). The NYHA FC system reflects a subjective assessment by a health care provider and can change frequently over short periods of time. Functional class correlates poorly with EF however, EF is one of the strongest predictors of prognosis. In general, anticipated survival declines in conjunction with a decline in functional ability. 

All of the above may appear to involve a great deal of effort but the extent of the effort should be based on the level of risk involved. The starting point should therefore be a risk-based assessment, categorizing the systems as high, medium or low risk based on their impact on the quality of the final result. Electronic records that are generated by systems that are critical to the study should be examined in detail for the whole of their life cycle. The following process is a way to approach the risk-based investigation ... 

Possible solutions modify existing diagnostic assessment instruments so criteria are assessed more dimensionally (no sxs, mild sxs, mod sxs, clinically signif sxs, severe sxs), plus assess for every diagnostic criterion use those taxometric procedures that can adequately deal with categorical data. 

Risk Categorization. The first step in this process is to clearly define the risk associated with the operation of this laboratory. This step includes a brief description of the operation followed by a risk assessment and a recommendation on the level of system safety required. 

Identification and quantitative estimation of common-cause failures are general problems in fault tree analysis. Boolean approaches are generally better suited to mathematically handle common-cause failures. The basic assumption is that failures are completely independent events, but in reality dependencies will exist and these are categorized as common cause failures (CCFs). Both qualitative and quantitative techniques can be applied to identify and assess CCFs. An excellent overview of CCF is available (AIChE-CCPS, 2000). 

The data required for the risk assessment in relation to human health can be categorized as data on the identity of the substance, its physico-chemical and toxicological properties, and on exposure. The minimum data set required for a risk assessment depends on the chemical use category (industrial chemical, pesticide, biocide, food additive, food contact material, etc.), the regulation involved, and the goal of the risk assessment. This chapter will focus on the data used in the hazard assessment. 

---