Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36888634›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Sloppiness: Fundamental study, new formalism and its application in model assessment.

Prem Jagadeesan, Karthik Raman, Arun K Tangirala

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Prem JagadeesanDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, Chennai, India.
Karthik RamanDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, IIT Madras, Chennai, India.
Arun K TangiralaDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7921-5340

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational modelling of biological processes poses multiple challenges in each stage of the modelling exercise. Some significant challenges include identifiability, precisely estimating parameters from limited data, informative experiments and anisotropic sensitivity in the parameter space. One of these challenges' crucial but inconspicuous sources is the possible presence of large regions in the parameter space over which model predictions are nearly identical. This property, known as sloppiness, has been reasonably well-addressed in the past decade, studying its possible impacts and remedies. However, certain critical unanswered questions concerning sloppiness, particularly related to its quantification and practical implications in various stages of system identification, still prevail. In this work, we systematically examine sloppiness at a fundamental level and formalise two new theoretical definitions of sloppiness. Using the proposed definitions, we establish a mathematical relationship between the parameter estimates' precision and sloppiness in linear predictors. Further, we develop a novel computational method and a visual tool to assess the goodness of a model around a point in parameter space by identifying local structural identifiability and sloppiness and finding the most sensitive and least sensitive parameters for non-infinitesimal perturbations. We demonstrate the working of our method in benchmark systems biology models of various complexities. The pharmacokinetic HIV infection model analysis identified a new set of biologically relevant parameters that can be used to control the free virus in an active HIV infection.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsModels, BiologicalComputer SimulationHumansSystems Biology

Identifiers

PMID36888634
PMCPMC9994762

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.