Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35696417›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Differential methods for assessing sensitivity in biological models.

Rachel Mester, Alfonso Landeros, Chris Rackauckas, Kenneth Lange

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Challenges and opportunities in uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Review
  3. The art of modeling gene regulatory circuits.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Rachel MesterDepartment of Computational Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6498-7727
Alfonso LanderosDepartment of Computational Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8091-7294
Chris RackauckasComputer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Kenneth LangeDepartment of Computational Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.

Funding

Training Grant in Genomic Analysis and InterpretationT32HG002536 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Valerie A Arboleda, Harold Pimentel · 2002 to 2026
$8.6M
Genomics, GPUs, and Next Generation Computational StatisticsR01HG006139 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI SOBEL, ERIC · 2011 to 2023
$5.1M
Modeling, Inference, and Optimization for Genomic and Biomedical Big DataR35GM141798 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LANGE, KENNETH L · 2021 to 2025
$2.7M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006139NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG002536NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM141798
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differential sensitivity analysis is indispensable in fitting parameters, understanding uncertainty, and forecasting the results of both thought and lab experiments. Although there are many methods currently available for performing differential sensitivity analysis of biological models, it can be difficult to determine which method is best suited for a particular model. In this paper, we explain a variety of differential sensitivity methods and assess their value in some typical biological models. First, we explain the mathematical basis for three numerical methods: adjoint sensitivity analysis, complex perturbation sensitivity analysis, and forward mode sensitivity analysis. We then carry out four instructive case studies. (a) The CARRGO model for tumor-immune interaction highlights the additional information that differential sensitivity analysis provides beyond traditional naive sensitivity methods, (b) the deterministic SIR model demonstrates the value of using second-order sensitivity in refining model predictions, (c) the stochastic SIR model shows how differential sensitivity can be attacked in stochastic modeling, and (d) a discrete birth-death-migration model illustrates how the complex perturbation method of differential sensitivity can be generalized to a broader range of biological models. Finally, we compare the speed, accuracy, and ease of use of these methods. We find that forward mode automatic differentiation has the quickest computational time, while the complex perturbation method is the simplest to implement and the most generalizable.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalStochastic ProcessesUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID35696417
PMCPMC9232177

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.