Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28656491›Full record

ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2017

Methods of Model Reduction for Large-Scale Biological Systems: A Survey of Current Methods and Trends.

Thomas J Snowden, Piet H van der Graaf, Marcus J Tindall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Sensitivity analysis of biochemical systems using bond graphs.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Thomas J SnowdenDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9541-4043
Piet H van der GraafCertara QSP, University of Kent Innovation Centre, Canterbury, CT2 7FG, UK.
Marcus J TindallDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AX, UK. m.tindall@reading.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complex models of biochemical reaction systems have become increasingly common in the systems biology literature. The complexity of such models can present a number of obstacles for their practical use, often making problems difficult to intuit or computationally intractable. Methods of model reduction can be employed to alleviate the issue of complexity by seeking to eliminate those portions of a reaction network that have little or no effect upon the outcomes of interest, hence yielding simplified systems that retain an accurate predictive capacity. This review paper seeks to provide a brief overview of a range of such methods and their application in the context of biochemical reaction network models. To achieve this, we provide a brief mathematical account of the main methods including timescale exploitation approaches, reduction via sensitivity analysis, optimisation methods, lumping, and singular value decomposition-based approaches. Methods are reviewed in the context of large-scale systems biology type models, and future areas of research are briefly discussed.

Indexed as

Cell Physiological PhenomenaModels, BiologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesSystems BiologyComplexityMathematical modellingModel reductionSystems biology

Identifiers

PMID28656491
PMCPMC5498684

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.