Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25512544›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014

Topological sensitivity analysis for systems biology.

Ann C Babtie, Paul Kirk, Michael P H Stumpf

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Turing pattern design principles and their robustness.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ann C BabtieCentre for Integrative Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Paul KirkCentre for Integrative Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Michael P H StumpfCentre for Integrative Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom m.stumpf@imperial.ac.uk.
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K017284/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mathematical models of natural systems are abstractions of much more complicated processes. Developing informative and realistic models of such systems typically involves suitable statistical inference methods, domain expertise, and a modicum of luck. Except for cases where physical principles provide sufficient guidance, it will also be generally possible to come up with a large number of potential models that are compatible with a given natural system and any finite amount of data generated from experiments on that system. Here we develop a computational framework to systematically evaluate potentially vast sets of candidate differential equation models in light of experimental and prior knowledge about biological systems. This topological sensitivity analysis enables us to evaluate quantitatively the dependence of model inferences and predictions on the assumed model structures. Failure to consider the impact of structural uncertainty introduces biases into the analysis and potentially gives rise to misleading conclusions.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalSystems Biologybiological networksdynamical systemsnetwork inferencerobustness analysis

Identifiers

PMID25512544
PMCPMC4284538
OpenAlexW1983030487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.