Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29688313›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018

Automatic selection of verification tools for efficient analysis of biochemical models.

Mehmet Emin Bakir, Savas Konur, Marian Gheorghe, Natalio Krasnogor, Mike Stannett

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Verifiable biology.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023
    Review
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mehmet Emin BakirDepartment of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Savas KonurSchool of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Marian GheorgheSchool of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Natalio KrasnogorInterdisciplinary Computing and Complex BioSystems (ICOS) Research Group, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Mike StannettDepartment of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
University of Bradford · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBNewcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: Formal verification is a computational approach that checks system correctness (in relation to a desired functionality). It has been widely used in engineering applications to verify that systems work correctly. Model checking, an algorithmic approach to verification, looks at whether a system model satisfies its requirements specification. This approach has been applied to a large number of models in systems and synthetic biology as well as in systems medicine. Model checking is, however, computationally very expensive, and is not scalable to large models and systems. Consequently, statistical model checking (SMC), which relaxes some of the constraints of model checking, has been introduced to address this drawback. Several SMC tools have been developed; however, the performance of each tool significantly varies according to the system model in question and the type of requirements being verified. This makes it hard to know, a priori, which one to use for a given model and requirement, as choosing the most efficient tool for any biological application requires a significant degree of computational expertise, not usually available in biology labs. The objective of this article is to introduce a method and provide a tool leading to the automatic selection of the most appropriate model checker for the system of interest. Results: We provide a system that can automatically predict the fastest model checking tool for a given biological model. Our results show that one can make predictions of high confidence, with over 90% accuracy. This implies significant performance gain in verification time and substantially reduces the 'usability barrier' enabling biologists to have access to this powerful computational technology. Availability and implementation: SMC Predictor tool is available at http://www.smcpredictor.com. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalComputational Biology

Identifiers

PMID29688313
PMCPMC6137970
OpenAlexW2799276609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.