ArticleMathematical biosciences2019
The parameter Houlihan: A solution to high-throughput identifiability indeterminacy for brutally ill-posed problems.
Article in Mathematical biosciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multiobjective optimization approach to data assimilation for complex biological systems with sparse data.Mathematical biosciences · 2026Article
- A methodology of phenotyping ICU patients from EHR data: High-fidelity, personalized, and interpretable phenotypes estimation.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
- Geometric analysis enables biological insight from complex non-identifiable models using simple surrogates.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- A Damaged-Informed Lung Ventilator Model for Ventilator Waveforms.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Mechanistic machine learning: how data assimilation leverages physiologic knowledge using Bayesian inference to forecast the future, infer the present, and phenotype.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One way to interject knowledge into clinically impactful forecasting is to use data assimilation, a nonlinear regression that projects data onto a mechanistic physiologic model, instead of a set of functions, such as neural networks. Such regressions have an advantage of being useful with particularly sparse, non-stationary clinical data. However, physiological models are often nonlinear and can have many parameters, leading to potential problems with parameter identifiability, or the ability to find a unique set of parameters that minimize forecasting error. The identifiability problems can be minimized or eliminated by reducing the number of parameters estimated, but reducing the number of estimated parameters also reduces the flexibility of the model and hence increases forecasting error. We propose a method, the parameter Houlihan, that combines traditional machine learning techniques with data assimilation, to select the right set of model parameters to minimize forecasting error while reducing identifiability problems. The method worked well: the data assimilation-based glucose forecasts and estimates for our cohort using the Houlihan-selected parameter sets generally also minimize forecasting errors compared to other parameter selection methods such as by-hand parameter selection. Nevertheless, the forecast with the lowest forecast error does not always accurately represent physiology, but further advancements of the algorithm provide a path for improving physiologic fidelity as well. Our hope is that this methodology represents a first step toward combining machine learning with data assimilation and provides a lower-threshold entry point for using data assimilation with clinical data by helping select the right parameters to estimate.
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.