Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30053887›Full record

ArticleBMC systems biology2018

Evaluating model reduction under parameter uncertainty.

Håvard G Frøysa, Shirin Fallahi, Nello Blaser

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC systems biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Håvard G FrøysaDepartment of Mathematics, University of Bergen, Mailbox 7803, Bergen, 5020, Norway. havard.froysa@uib.no.
Shirin FallahiDepartment of Mathematics, University of Bergen, Mailbox 7803, Bergen, 5020, Norway.
Nello BlaserDepartment of Mathematics, University of Bergen, Mailbox 7803, Bergen, 5020, Norway.
University of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe dynamics of biochemical networks can be modelled by systems of ordinary differential equations. However, these networks are typically large and contain many parameters. Therefore model reduction procedures, such as lumping, sensitivity analysis and time-scale separation, are used to simplify models. Although there are many different model reduction procedures, the evaluation of reduced models is difficult and depends on the parameter values of the full model. There is a lack of a criteria for evaluating reduced models when the model parameters are uncertain.

resultsWe developed a method to compare reduced models and select the model that results in similar dynamics and uncertainty as the original model. We simulated different parameter sets from the assumed parameter distributions. Then, we compared all reduced models for all parameter sets using cluster analysis. The clusters revealed which of the reduced models that were similar to the original model in dynamics and variability. This allowed us to select the smallest reduced model that best approximated the full model. Through examples we showed that when parameter uncertainty was large, the model should be reduced further and when parameter uncertainty was small, models should not be reduced much.

conclusionsA method to compare different models under parameter uncertainty is developed. It can be applied to any model reduction method. We also showed that the amount of parameter uncertainty influences the choice of reduced models.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalUncertaintyAlgorithmsCluster AnalysisGlycolysisSaccharomyces cerevisiaeClusteringModel reductionParameter uncertaintySystems biology

Identifiers

PMID30053887
PMCPMC6062951
OpenAlexW2884839891

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.