ArticleBiometrics2013
Mechanistic analysis of challenge-response experiments.
Article in Biometrics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Glutamine and glutamate limit the shortening of action potential duration in anoxia-challenged rabbit hearts.Physiological reports · 2015Article
- Real-time cellular exometabolome analysis with a microfluidic-mass spectrometry platform.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present an application of mechanistic modeling and nonlinear longitudinal regression in the context of biomedical response-to-challenge experiments, a field where these methods are underutilized. In this type of experiment, a system is studied by imposing an experimental challenge, and then observing its response. The combination of mechanistic modeling and nonlinear longitudinal regression has brought new insight, and revealed an unexpected opportunity for optimal design. Specifically, the mechanistic aspect of our approach enables the optimal design of experimental challenge characteristics (e.g., intensity, duration). This article lays some groundwork for this approach. We consider a series of experiments wherein an isolated rabbit heart is challenged with intermittent anoxia. The heart responds to the challenge onset, and recovers when the challenge ends. The mean response is modeled by a system of differential equations that describe a candidate mechanism for cardiac response to anoxia challenge. The cardiac system behaves more variably when challenged than when at rest. Hence, observations arising from this experiment exhibit complex heteroscedasticity and sharp changes in central tendency. We present evidence that an asymptotic statistical inference strategy may fail to adequately account for statistical uncertainty. Two alternative methods are critiqued qualitatively (i.e., for utility in the current context), and quantitatively using an innovative Monte-Carlo method. We conclude with a discussion of the exciting opportunities in optimal design of response-to-challenge experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.