ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2014
Modelling biological behaviours with the unified modelling language: an immunological case study and critique.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Application of Modeling Approaches to Explore Vaccine Adjuvant Mode-of-Action.Frontiers in immunology · 2019Article
- Leukocyte Motility Models Assessed through Simulation and Multi-objective Optimization-Based Model Selection.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- Automated multi-objective calibration of biological agent-based simulations.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2016Article
- Statistical Techniques Complement UML When Developing Domain Models of Complex Dynamical Biosystems.PloS one · 2016Article
- Using argument notation to engineer biological simulations with increased confidence.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a framework to assist the diagrammatic modelling of complex biological systems using the unified modelling language (UML). The framework comprises three levels of modelling, ranging in scope from the dynamics of individual model entities to system-level emergent properties. By way of an immunological case study of the mouse disease experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, we show how the framework can be used to produce models that capture and communicate the biological system, detailing how biological entities, interactions and behaviours lead to higher-level emergent properties observed in the real world. We demonstrate how the UML can be successfully applied within our framework, and provide a critique of UML's ability to capture concepts fundamental to immunology and biology more generally. We show how specialized, well-explained diagrams with less formal semantics can be used where no suitable UML formalism exists. We highlight UML's lack of expressive ability concerning cyclic feedbacks in cellular networks, and the compounding concurrency arising from huge numbers of stochastic, interacting agents. To compensate for this, we propose several additional relationships for expressing these concepts in UML's activity diagram. We also demonstrate the ambiguous nature of class diagrams when applied to complex biology, and question their utility in modelling such dynamic systems. Models created through our framework are non-executable, and expressly free of simulation implementation concerns. They are a valuable complement and precursor to simulation specifications and implementations, focusing purely on thoroughly exploring the biology, recording hypotheses and assumptions, and serve as a communication medium detailing exactly how a simulation relates to the real biology.
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.