Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29313239›Full record

ArticleHistory and philosophy of the life sciences2018

Modeling complexity: cognitive constraints and computational model-building in integrative systems biology.

Miles MacLeod, Nancy J Nersessian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in History and philosophy of the life sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Striking the balance: Complexity, simplicity, and credibility in mathematical biology.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. An adaptableMolecular omics · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The Future of Burn Care From a Complexity Science Perspective.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Miles MacLeodDepartment of Philosophy, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands. m.a.j.macleod@utwente.nl.
Nancy J NersessianDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland St., Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation DRL097394084
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern integrative systems biology defines itself by the complexity of the problems it takes on through computational modeling and simulation. However in integrative systems biology computers do not solve problems alone. Problem solving depends as ever on human cognitive resources. Current philosophical accounts hint at their importance, but it remains to be understood what roles human cognition plays in computational modeling. In this paper we focus on practices through which modelers in systems biology use computational simulation and other tools to handle the cognitive complexity of their modeling problems so as to be able to make significant contributions to understanding, intervening in, and controlling complex biological systems. We thus show how cognition, especially processes of simulative mental modeling, is implicated centrally in processes of model-building. At the same time we suggest how the representational choices of what to model in systems biology are limited or constrained as a result. Such constraints help us both understand and rationalize the restricted form that problem solving takes in the field and why its results do not always measure up to expectations.

Indexed as

CognitionModels, PsychologicalSystems BiologyHumansComplexityMental modelingScientific cognitionSimulationSystems biology

Identifiers

PMID29313239
PMCPMC5758710

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.