ArticleFrontiers in physiology2022
Automated model calibration with parallel MCMC: Applications for a cardiovascular system model.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Modular Computational Approach for Assessing Active and Passive Force Contributions in Interstitial Lymphatic Fluid Uptake.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Physics-Informed Neural Operators for Parameter Inference in Multi-vessel Cardiovascular Networks.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Regional heterogeneity in left atrial stiffness impacts passive deformation in a cohort of patient-specific models.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Computational modelling of cardiac control following myocardial infarction using an in silico patient cohort.The Journal of physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational physiological models continue to increase in complexity, however, the task of efficiently calibrating the model to available clinical data remains a significant challenge. One part of this challenge is associated with long calibration times, which present a barrier for the routine application of model-based prediction in clinical practice. Another aspect of this challenge is the limited available data for the unique calibration of complex models. Therefore, to calibrate a patient-specific model, it may be beneficial to verify that task-specific model predictions have acceptable uncertainty, rather than requiring all parameters to be uniquely identified. We have developed a pipeline that reduces the set of fitting parameters to make them structurally identifiable and to improve the efficiency of a subsequent Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis. MCMC was used to find the optimal parameter values and to determine the confidence interval of a task-specific prediction. This approach was demonstrated on numerical experiments where a lumped parameter model of the cardiovascular system was calibrated to brachial artery cuff pressure, echocardiogram volume measurements, and synthetic cerebral blood flow data that approximates what can be obtained from 4D-flow MRI data. This pipeline provides a cerebral arterial pressure prediction that may be useful for determining the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. For a set of three patients, this pipeline successfully reduced the parameter set of a cardiovascular system model from 12 parameters to 8-10 structurally identifiable parameters. This enabled a significant
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.