ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2016
Automated multi-objective calibration of biological agent-based simulations.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Apoptotic cell fragments locally activate tingible body macrophages in the germinal center.Cell · 2023Article
- Harmonics, evolutionary generators, DANCE, and HEAR-functional dimensions.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- A computational model tracks whole-lung Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection and predicts factors that inhibit dissemination.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Three-dimensional experiments and individual based simulations show that cell proliferation drives melanoma nest formation in human skin tissue.BMC systems biology · 2018Article
- Review
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
Computational agent-based simulation (ABS) is increasingly used to complement laboratory techniques in advancing our understanding of biological systems. Calibration, the identification of parameter values that align simulation with biological behaviours, becomes challenging as increasingly complex biological domains are simulated. Complex domains cannot be characterized by single metrics alone, rendering simulation calibration a fundamentally multi-metric optimization problem that typical calibration techniques cannot handle. Yet calibration is an essential activity in simulation-based science; the baseline calibration forms a control for subsequent experimentation and hence is fundamental in the interpretation of results. Here, we develop and showcase a method, built around multi-objective optimization, for calibrating ABSs against complex target behaviours requiring several metrics (termed objectives) to characterize. Multi-objective calibration (MOC) delivers those sets of parameter values representing optimal trade-offs in simulation performance against each metric, in the form of a Pareto front. We use MOC to calibrate a well-understood immunological simulation against both established a priori and previously unestablished target behaviours. Furthermore, we show that simulation-borne conclusions are broadly, but not entirely, robust to adopting baseline parameter values from different extremes of the Pareto front, highlighting the importance of MOC's identification of numerous calibration solutions. We devise a method for detecting overfitting in a multi-objective context, not previously possible, used to save computational effort by terminating MOC when no improved solutions will be found. MOC can significantly impact biological simulation, adding rigour to and speeding up an otherwise time-consuming calibration process and highlighting inappropriate biological capture by simulations that cannot be well calibrated. As such, it produces more accurate simulations that generate more informative biological predictions.
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.