Analyse bayésienne et élicitation d’opinions d’experts en analyse de risques
et particulièrement dans le cas de l’amiante chrysotile
Characterizing the carcinogenic potency of chrysotile asbestos fibres relies a great deal on subjective and uncertain judgements by experts and analysts, given heterogeneous and equivocal results of important epidemiological and toxicological studies. The probabilistic Bayesian approach in risk assessments quantifies these subjective judgements and their uncertainties, along with their impact on risk estimations, but it is rarely used in the public health context. This report examines how the Bayesian approach could have been applied to a recent elicitation of experts’ opinions to estimate the toxicity of chrysotile asbestos, the degree of convergence and divergence, as well as the uncertainty levels of these experts. The experts’ estimations on the relative toxicity of chrysotile and amphibole asbestos were similar in the case of mesothelioma. However, in the case of lung cancer, the heterogeneity of the studies resulted in diverging and incompatible probabilistic evaluations. The experts’ judgements seemed influenced by heuristic biases, particularly the affect and anchor heuristics associated with a controversial topic and to heterogeneous data. If the elicitation process had been prepared following a rigorous methodology, these heuristics and biases could have been mitigated.
expert bayesian asbestos heuristic expert elicitation toxicity