Disciplina Discipline VPS5701
Análise de Risco em Medicina Veterinária
Risk Analysis in Veterinary Medicine

Área de Concentração: 10134

Concentration area: 10134

Criação: 17/04/2020

Creation: 17/04/2020

Ativação: 13/07/2020

Activation: 13/07/2020

Nr. de Créditos: 4

Credits: 4

Carga Horária:

Workload:

Docentes Responsáveis:

Professors:

Evelise Oliveira Telles

Fernando Ferreira

Objetivos:

O presente curso tem por objetivo fornecer os conceitos básicos associados à realização de análise de risco e capacitar os alunos para o seu emprego na resolução de problemas relacionados à saúde dos animais e do homem.

Objectives:

This course aims to provide the basic concepts associated with conducting risk analysis and to enable students to use them to solve problems related to the health of animals and humans.

Justificativa:

A análise de risco é ferramenta poderosa para auxiliar na tomada de decisão na presença de incertezas. A sua flexibilidade a torna adequada para a abordagem de diversos problemas associados à saúde animal e saúde pública, sendo o seu emprego amplamente recomendado pela OIE, FAO e OMS.

Rationale:

Risk analysis is a powerful tool to assist decision making in the presence of uncertainty. Its flexibility makes it suitable for addressing various problems associated with animal and human health, and its use is widely recommended by the OIE, FAO and WHO.

Conteúdo:

Introdução à Análise de Risco Planejamento da análise de risco Avaliação da análise de risco Comunicação dos resultados da análise de risco Ferramentas para análise de risco Introdução à probabilidade. Distribuições. Processos aleatórios. Processo Binomial, Processo de Poison, Processo Hipergeométrico, Processos de reonvação Inferência Bayesiana Ajuste de distribuições aos dados Composição de variáveis Correlação e dependência Opinião de especialistas Otimização, verificação e validação de modelo Aplicações em saúde animal. saúde pública, microbiologia preditiva, shelf life de produtos

Content:

Introduction to Risk Analysis Planning the risk analysis Evaluation of the risk analysis Reporting the results of the risk analysis Toolbox for risk analysis Introduction to probability. Distributions Random processes. Binomial Process, Poison Process, Hypergeometric Process, Reonvação Process Bayesian Inference Adjustment of distributions to data Composition of variables Correlation and dependency Expert opinion Model optimization, verification and validation Applications in animal health, public health, predictive microbiology and product shelf life

Forma de Avaliação:

Entrega de exercícios, participação em chats e fóruns de discussão. Exame final.

Type of Assessment:

Exercises, participation in chats and discussion forums. Final exam.

Observação:

Ensino à distância

Notes/Remarks:

Distance teaching

Bibliografia:

Livros 1. Aven T. Risk Analysis. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2015. 2. Brul S, van Gerwen S, Zwietering M. Modelling Microorganisms in Food. Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2007. doi:10.1533/9781845692940 3. Clifton A. Ericson I. Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2015. 4. Costa R, Kristbergsson K, eds. Predictive Modeling and RiskAssessment. Vol 4. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2009. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-68776-6 5. Cox LA. Quantitative Health Risk Analysis Methods Modeling the Human Health Impacts of Antibiotics Used in Food Animals. 1st ed. Denver, CO: Cox Associates and University of Colorado; 2006. 6. Cox LA, Popken DA, Sun RX. Causal Analytics for Applied Risk Analysis. Vol 270. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78242-3 7. Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba CP. Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2014. 8. Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM, eds. Communicating Risks to the Public. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1991. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5 9. Kelly D, Smith C. Bayesian Inference for Probabilistic Risk Assessment. (Kelly D, Smith C, eds.). London: Springer London; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-187-5 10. Liu H-C. Improved FMEA Methods for Proactive Healthcare Risk Analysis. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6366-5 11. Lundgren RE, McMakin AH. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2018. 12. Nicoli MC, ed. Shelf Life Assessment of Food. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2012. 13. Ostrom L, Wilhelmsen C. Risk Assessment. Wiley; 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119483342 14. Shemyakin A, Kniazev A. Introduction to Bayesian Estimation and Copula Models of Dependence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2017. doi:10.1002/9781118959046 15. Subramaniam P, Wareing P, eds. The Stability and Shelf Life of Food. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. 16. Vose D. Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide. 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. 17. Yoe CE. Principles of Risk Analysis : Decision Making under Uncertainty. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2019. Artigos 1. Cox, L. A. What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Anal. 28, 497–512 (2008). 2. Cox, L. A. T. Some limitations of ‘Risk = Threat x Vulnerability x Consequence’ for risk analysis of terrorist attacks. Risk Anal. 28, 1749–61 (2008). 3. Cox, L. A. T., Babayev, D. & Huber, W. Some limitations of qualitative risk rating systems. Risk Anal. 25, 651–62 (2005). 4. Cumming, R. B. Is Risk Assessment A Science? Risk Anal. 1, 1–3 (1981). 5. Huber, W. A. Ignorance Is Not Probability. Risk Anal. 30, 371–376 (2010). 6. Jones, R. D., Kelly, L., Fooks, A. R. & Wooldridge, M. Quantitative risk assessment of rabies entering Great Britain from North America via cats and dogs. Risk Anal. 25, 533–42 (2005). 7. Kaplan, S. & Garrick, B. J. On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Anal. 1, 11–27 (1981). 8. Kusumi, T., Hirayama, R. & Kashima, Y. Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk. Risk Anal. 37, 2305–2320 (2017). 9. Meyer, A. et al. Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Release of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus via Export of Bull Semen from Israel. Risk Anal. 37, 2350–2359 (2017). 10. Oliveira, A. R. S., Piaggio, J., Cohnstaedt, L. W., McVey, D. S. & Cernicchiaro, N. A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of the risk of introduction of the Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) in the United States via infected mosquitoes transported in aircraft and cargo ships. Prev. Vet. Med. 160, 1–9 (2018). 11. Oscar, T. P. The development of a risk assessment model for use in the poultry industry. J. Food Saf. 18, 371–381 (1998). 12. Pepin, K. M. et al. Inferring infection hazard in wildlife populations by linking data across individual and population scales. Ecol. Lett. 20, 275–292 (2017). 13. Powell, M. R. How to Model a Negligible Probability Under the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement? Risk Anal. 33, 972–83 (2013). 14. Smadi, H. & Sargeant, J. M. Quantitative Risk Assessment of Human Salmonellosis in Canadian Broiler Chicken Breast from Retail to Consumption. Risk Anal. 33, 232–248 (2013). 15. Smid, J., de Jonge, R., Havelaar, A. H. & Pielaat, A. Variability and uncertainty analysis of the cross-contamination ratios of salmonella during pork cutting. Risk Anal. 33, 1100–15 (2013). 16. Tenzin, Dekker, A., Vernooij, H., Bouma, A. & Stegeman, A. Rate of foot-and-mouth disease virus transmission by carriers quantified from experimental data. Risk Anal. 28, 303–9 (2008). 17. Zhang, Y. et al. Interventions Targeting Deep Tissue Lymph Nodes May Not Effectively Reduce the Risk of Salmonellosis from Ground Pork Consumption: A Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. Risk Anal. 39, 2237–2258 (2019).

Bibliography:

Livros 1. Aven T. Risk Analysis. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2015. 2. Brul S, van Gerwen S, Zwietering M. Modelling Microorganisms in Food. Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2007. doi:10.1533/9781845692940 3. Clifton A. Ericson I. Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2015. 4. Costa R, Kristbergsson K, eds. Predictive Modeling and RiskAssessment. Vol 4. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2009. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-68776-6 5. Cox LA. Quantitative Health Risk Analysis Methods Modeling the Human Health Impacts of Antibiotics Used in Food Animals. 1st ed. Denver, CO: Cox Associates and University of Colorado; 2006. 6. Cox LA, Popken DA, Sun RX. Causal Analytics for Applied Risk Analysis. Vol 270. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78242-3 7. Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba CP. Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2014. 8. Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM, eds. Communicating Risks to the Public. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1991. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5 9. Kelly D, Smith C. Bayesian Inference for Probabilistic Risk Assessment. (Kelly D, Smith C, eds.). London: Springer London; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-187-5 10. Liu H-C. Improved FMEA Methods for Proactive Healthcare Risk Analysis. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6366-5 11. Lundgren RE, McMakin AH. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2018. 12. Nicoli MC, ed. Shelf Life Assessment of Food. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2012. 13. Ostrom L, Wilhelmsen C. Risk Assessment. Wiley; 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119483342 14. Shemyakin A, Kniazev A. Introduction to Bayesian Estimation and Copula Models of Dependence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2017. doi:10.1002/9781118959046 15. Subramaniam P, Wareing P, eds. The Stability and Shelf Life of Food. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. 16. Vose D. Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide. 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. 17. Yoe CE. Principles of Risk Analysis : Decision Making under Uncertainty. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2019. Artigos 1. Cox, L. A. What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Anal. 28, 497–512 (2008). 2. Cox, L. A. T. Some limitations of ‘Risk = Threat x Vulnerability x Consequence’ for risk analysis of terrorist attacks. Risk Anal. 28, 1749–61 (2008). 3. Cox, L. A. T., Babayev, D. & Huber, W. Some limitations of qualitative risk rating systems. Risk Anal. 25, 651–62 (2005). 4. Cumming, R. B. Is Risk Assessment A Science? Risk Anal. 1, 1–3 (1981). 5. Huber, W. A. Ignorance Is Not Probability. Risk Anal. 30, 371–376 (2010). 6. Jones, R. D., Kelly, L., Fooks, A. R. & Wooldridge, M. Quantitative risk assessment of rabies entering Great Britain from North America via cats and dogs. Risk Anal. 25, 533–42 (2005). 7. Kaplan, S. & Garrick, B. J. On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Anal. 1, 11–27 (1981). 8. Kusumi, T., Hirayama, R. & Kashima, Y. Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk. Risk Anal. 37, 2305–2320 (2017). 9. Meyer, A. et al. Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Release of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus via Export of Bull Semen from Israel. Risk Anal. 37, 2350–2359 (2017). 10. Oliveira, A. R. S., Piaggio, J., Cohnstaedt, L. W., McVey, D. S. & Cernicchiaro, N. A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of the risk of introduction of the Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) in the United States via infected mosquitoes transported in aircraft and cargo ships. Prev. Vet. Med. 160, 1–9 (2018). 11. Oscar, T. P. The development of a risk assessment model for use in the poultry industry. J. Food Saf. 18, 371–381 (1998). 12. Pepin, K. M. et al. Inferring infection hazard in wildlife populations by linking data across individual and population scales. Ecol. Lett. 20, 275–292 (2017). 13. Powell, M. R. How to Model a Negligible Probability Under the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement? Risk Anal. 33, 972–83 (2013). 14. Smadi, H. & Sargeant, J. M. Quantitative Risk Assessment of Human Salmonellosis in Canadian Broiler Chicken Breast from Retail to Consumption. Risk Anal. 33, 232–248 (2013). 15. Smid, J., de Jonge, R., Havelaar, A. H. & Pielaat, A. Variability and uncertainty analysis of the cross-contamination ratios of salmonella during pork cutting. Risk Anal. 33, 1100–15 (2013). 16. Tenzin, Dekker, A., Vernooij, H., Bouma, A. & Stegeman, A. Rate of foot-and-mouth disease virus transmission by carriers quantified from experimental data. Risk Anal. 28, 303–9 (2008). 17. Zhang, Y. et al. Interventions Targeting Deep Tissue Lymph Nodes May Not Effectively Reduce the Risk of Salmonellosis from Ground Pork Consumption: A Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. Risk Anal. 39, 2237–2258 (2019).

Tipo de oferecimento da disciplina:

Não-Presencial

Class type:

Não-Presencial

Informações adicionais do oferecimento da disciplina:

somente EaD

Additional class type information:

somente EaD