ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018
Automatic selection of verification tools for efficient analysis of biochemical models.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Formal verification of bioinformatics software using model checking and theorem proving.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Verifiable biology.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Review
- Deciphering the expression dynamics of ANGPTL8 associated regulatory network in insulin resistance using formal modelling approaches.IET systems biology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.