Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24705453›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Composing problem solvers for simulation experimentation: a case study on steady state estimation.

Stefan Leye, Roland Ewald, Adelinde M Uhrmacher

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stefan LeyeInstitute of Computer Science, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Roland EwaldInstitute of Computer Science, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Adelinde M UhrmacherInstitute of Computer Science, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulation experiments involve various sub-tasks, e.g., parameter optimization, simulation execution, or output data analysis. Many algorithms can be applied to such tasks, but their performance depends on the given problem. Steady state estimation in systems biology is a typical example for this: several estimators have been proposed, each with its own (dis-)advantages. Experimenters, therefore, must choose from the available options, even though they may not be aware of the consequences. To support those users, we propose a general scheme to aggregate such algorithms to so-called synthetic problem solvers, which exploit algorithm differences to improve overall performance. Our approach subsumes various aggregation mechanisms, supports automatic configuration from training data (e.g., via ensemble learning or portfolio selection), and extends the plugin system of the open source modeling and simulation framework James II. We show the benefits of our approach by applying it to steady state estimation for cell-biological models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputer SimulationProblem SolvingComputational BiologyDecision TreesHumansStatistics as TopicSystems Biology

Identifiers

PMID24705453
PMCPMC3976265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.