Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28646868›Full record

ArticleBMC systems biology2017

Comprehensive benchmarking of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for dynamical systems.

Benjamin Ballnus, Sabine Hug, Kathrin Hatz, Linus Görlitz, Jan Hasenauer, Fabian J Theis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC systems biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Meta-Dynamic Network Modelling for Biochemical Networks.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Nonidentifiability in Model Calibration and Implications for Medical Decision Making.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Benjamin BallnusHelmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Computational Biology, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, Neuherberg, 85764, Germany.
Sabine HugHelmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Computational Biology, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, Neuherberg, 85764, Germany.
Kathrin HatzBayer AG, Engineering & Technologies, Applied Mathematics, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Allee, Leverkusen, 51368, Germany.
Linus GörlitzBayer AG, Engineering & Technologies, Applied Mathematics, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Allee, Leverkusen, 51368, Germany.
Jan HasenauerHelmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Computational Biology, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, Neuherberg, 85764, Germany.
Fabian J TheisHelmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Computational Biology, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, Neuherberg, 85764, Germany. fabian.theis@helmholtz-muenchen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn quantitative biology, mathematical models are used to describe and analyze biological processes. The parameters of these models are usually unknown and need to be estimated from experimental data using statistical methods. In particular, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods have become increasingly popular as they allow for a rigorous analysis of parameter and prediction uncertainties without the need for assuming parameter identifiability or removing non-identifiable parameters. A broad spectrum of MCMC algorithms have been proposed, including single- and multi-chain approaches. However, selecting and tuning sampling algorithms suited for a given problem remains challenging and a comprehensive comparison of different methods is so far not available.

resultsWe present the results of a thorough benchmarking of state-of-the-art single- and multi-chain sampling methods, including Adaptive Metropolis, Delayed Rejection Adaptive Metropolis, Metropolis adjusted Langevin algorithm, Parallel Tempering and Parallel Hierarchical Sampling. Different initialization and adaptation schemes are considered. To ensure a comprehensive and fair comparison, we consider problems with a range of features such as bifurcations, periodical orbits, multistability of steady-state solutions and chaotic regimes. These problem properties give rise to various posterior distributions including uni- and multi-modal distributions and non-normally distributed mode tails. For an objective comparison, we developed a pipeline for the semi-automatic comparison of sampling results.

conclusionThe comparison of MCMC algorithms, initialization and adaptation schemes revealed that overall multi-chain algorithms perform better than single-chain algorithms. In some cases this performance can be further increased by using a preceding multi-start local optimization scheme. These results can inform the selection of sampling methods and the benchmark collection can serve for the evaluation of new algorithms. Furthermore, our results confirm the need to address exploration quality of MCMC chains before applying the commonly used quality measure of effective sample size to prevent false analysis conclusions.

Indexed as

Markov ChainsMonte Carlo MethodAlgorithmsBenchmarkingRNA, MessengerSystems BiologyRNA, MessengerBenchmark collectionMarkov chain Monte CarloOrdinary differential equationParameter estimationSampling analysisSystems biology

Identifiers

PMID28646868
PMCPMC5482939

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.