Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31804613›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Immunology2020

Simulation modelling for immunologists.

Andreas Handel, Nicole L La Gruta, Paul G Thomas

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Embracing complexity in sepsis.Critical care (London, England) · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Andreas HandelDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Health Informatics Institute and Center for the Ecology of Infectious Diseases, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. ahandel@uga.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4622-1146
Nicole L La GrutaDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5358-9363
Paul G ThomasDepartment of Immunology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7955-0256

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The immune system is inordinately complex with many interacting components determining overall outcomes. Mathematical and computational modelling provides a useful way in which the various contributions of different immunological components can be probed in an integrated manner. Here, we provide an introductory overview and review of mechanistic simulation models. We start out by briefly defining these types of models and contrasting them to other model types that are relevant to the field of immunology. We follow with a few specific examples and then review the different ways one can use such models to answer immunological questions. While our examples focus on immune responses to infection, the overall ideas and descriptions of model uses can be applied to any area of immunology.

Indexed as

Allergy and ImmunologyComputer SimulationHumansImmunityModels, Immunological

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.