ReviewJournal of translational medicine2023
Adapting modeling and simulation credibility standards to computational systems biology.
Review in Journal of translational medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The 95% CDIRAs, a Credible Interval Based Method to Capture Uncertainty in Population Modeling: Pharmacokinetics Versus Sum of Exponentials Case Study.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- AI and network biology for rational polypharmacology in signaling drug design: a review.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Review
- From FAIR to CURE: guidelines for computational models of biological systems.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Review
- Modelling maternal cardiovascular adaptation to pregnancy: a scoping review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- FAIRification of computational models in biology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The role of prefrontal-hippocampal functional connectivity in schizophrenia-related cognitive dysfunction and the thalamic ventral midline involvement:Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
- A rubric for assessing conformance to the Ten Rules for credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare.PloS one · 2025Article
- Computational modelling of cardiovascular pathophysiology to risk stratify commercial spaceflight.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2024Review
- Making PBPK models more reproducible in practice.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- ENCORE: a practical implementation to improve reproducibility and transparency of computational research.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Veterinary systems biology for bridging the phenotype-genotype gap via computational modeling for disease epidemiology and animal welfare.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- Microbiome modeling: a beginner's guide.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- A framework for multi-scale intervention modeling: virtual cohorts, virtual clinical trials, and model-to-model comparisons.Frontiers in systems biology · 2023Article
- Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational models are increasingly used in high-impact decision making in science, engineering, and medicine. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) uses computational models to perform complex experiments that are otherwise prohibitively expensive or require a microgravity environment. Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have began accepting models and simulations as forms of evidence for pharmaceutical and medical device approval. It is crucial that computational models meet a standard of credibility when using them in high-stakes decision making. For this reason, institutes including NASA, the FDA, and the EMA have developed standards to promote and assess the credibility of computational models and simulations. However, due to the breadth of models these institutes assess, these credibility standards are mostly qualitative and avoid making specific recommendations. On the other hand, modeling and simulation in systems biology is a narrower domain and several standards are already in place. As systems biology models increase in complexity and influence, the development of a credibility assessment system is crucial. Here we review existing standards in systems biology, credibility standards in other science, engineering, and medical fields, and propose the development of a credibility standard for systems biology models.
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.