Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37999811›Full record

ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2023

Empirical Quantification of Predictive Uncertainty Due to Model Discrepancy by Training with an Ensemble of Experimental Designs: An Application to Ion Channel Kinetics.

Joseph G Shuttleworth, Chon Lok Lei, Dominic G Whittaker, Monique J Windley, Adam P Hill, Simon P Preston, Gary R Mirams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Evaluating the predictive accuracy of ion-channel models using data from multiple experimental designs.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Optimizing experimental designs for model selection of ion channel drug-binding mechanisms.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Challenges and opportunities in uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Joseph G ShuttleworthCentre for Mathematical Medicine & Biology, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4884-6526
Chon Lok LeiInstitute of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Macau, Macau, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0904-554X
Dominic G WhittakerCentre for Mathematical Medicine & Biology, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2757-5491
Monique J WindleyComputational Cardiology Laboratory, Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6829-3856
Adam P HillComputational Cardiology Laboratory, Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6403-1282
Simon P PrestonCentre for Mathematical Medicine & Biology, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1910-4227
Gary R MiramsCentre for Mathematical Medicine & Biology, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. gary.mirams@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4569-4312

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 212203/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When using mathematical models to make quantitative predictions for clinical or industrial use, it is important that predictions come with a reliable estimate of their accuracy (uncertainty quantification). Because models of complex biological systems are always large simplifications, model discrepancy arises-models fail to perfectly recapitulate the true data generating process. This presents a particular challenge for making accurate predictions, and especially for accurately quantifying uncertainty in these predictions. Experimentalists and modellers must choose which experimental procedures (protocols) are used to produce data used to train models. We propose to characterise uncertainty owing to model discrepancy with an ensemble of parameter sets, each of which results from training to data from a different protocol. The variability in predictions from this ensemble provides an empirical estimate of predictive uncertainty owing to model discrepancy, even for unseen protocols. We use the example of electrophysiology experiments that investigate the properties of hERG potassium channels. Here, 'information-rich' protocols allow mathematical models to be trained using numerous short experiments performed on the same cell. In this case, we simulate data with one model and fit it with a different (discrepant) one. For any individual experimental protocol, parameter estimates vary little under repeated samples from the assumed additive independent Gaussian noise model. Yet parameter sets arising from the same model applied to different experiments conflict-highlighting model discrepancy. Our methods will help select more suitable ion channel models for future studies, and will be widely applicable to a range of biological modelling problems.

Indexed as

Mathematical ConceptsModels, BiologicalIon ChannelsModels, TheoreticalUncertaintyIon ChannelsDiscrepancyExperimental designIon channelMathematical modelMisspecificationUncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID37999811
PMCPMC10673765

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.