ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2021
The importance of uncertainty quantification in model reproducibility.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncertainty Quantification forChemical reviews · 2026Review
- Addressing model discrepancy in a clinical model of the oxygen dissociation curve.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- Emulating computer models with high-dimensional count output.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- Prokaryotic voltage-gated sodium channels are more effective than endogenous NaAmerican journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2023Article
- Modeling the impact of different PrEP targeting strategies combined with a clinic-based HIV-1 nucleic acid testing intervention in Kenya.Epidemics · 2023Article
- Insights into the quantification and reporting of model-related uncertainty across different disciplines.iScience · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many computer models possess high-dimensional input spaces and substantial computational time to produce a single model evaluation. Although such models are often 'deterministic', these models suffer from a wide range of uncertainties. We argue that uncertainty quantification is crucial for computer model validation and reproducibility. We present a statistical framework, termed history matching, for performing global parameter search by comparing model output to the observed data. We employ Gaussian process (GP) emulators to produce fast predictions about model behaviour at the arbitrary input parameter settings allowing output uncertainty distributions to be calculated. History matching identifies sets of input parameters that give rise to acceptable matches between observed data and model output given our representation of uncertainties. Modellers could proceed by simulating computer models' outputs of interest at these identified parameter settings and producing a range of predictions. The variability in model results is crucial for inter-model comparison as well as model development. We illustrate the performance of emulation and history matching on a simple one-dimensional toy model and in application to a climate model. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reliability and reproducibility in computational science: implementing verification, validation and uncertainty quantification
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.