ArticleCellular logistics2017
Integrative biological simulation praxis: Considerations from physics, philosophy, and data/model curation practices.
Article in Cellular logistics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Re-examining physician-scientist training through the prism of the discovery-invention cycle.F1000Research · 2019Article
- OpenWorm: overview and recent advances in integrative biological simulation ofPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrative biological simulations have a varied and controversial history in the biological sciences. From computational models of organelles, cells, and simple organisms, to physiological models of tissues, organ systems, and ecosystems, a diverse array of biological systems have been the target of large-scale computational modeling efforts. Nonetheless, these research agendas have yet to prove decisively their value among the broader community of theoretical and experimental biologists. In this commentary, we examine a range of philosophical and practical issues relevant to understanding the potential of integrative simulations. We discuss the role of theory and modeling in different areas of physics and suggest that certain sub-disciplines of physics provide useful cultural analogies for imagining the future role of simulations in biological research. We examine philosophical issues related to modeling which consistently arise in discussions about integrative simulations and suggest a pragmatic viewpoint that balances a belief in philosophy with the recognition of the relative infancy of our state of philosophical understanding. Finally, we discuss community workflow and publication practices to allow research to be readily discoverable and amenable to incorporation into simulations. We argue that there are aligned incentives in widespread adoption of practices which will both advance the needs of integrative simulation efforts as well as other contemporary trends in the biological sciences, ranging from open science and data sharing to improving reproducibility.
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.