ArticlePloS one2024
Benchmarking methods for computing local sensitivities in ordinary differential equation models at dynamic and steady states.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimating parameters of dynamic models from experimental data is a challenging, and often computationally-demanding task. It requires a large number of model simulations and objective function gradient computations, if gradient-based optimization is used. In many cases, steady-state computation is a part of model simulation, either due to steady-state data or an assumption that the system is at steady state at the initial time point. Various methods are available for steady-state and gradient computation. Yet, the most efficient pair of methods (one for steady states, one for gradients) for a particular model is often not clear. In order to facilitate the selection of methods, we explore six method pairs for computing the steady state and sensitivities at steady state using six real-world problems. The method pairs involve numerical integration or Newton's method to compute the steady-state, and-for both forward and adjoint sensitivity analysis-numerical integration or a tailored method to compute the sensitivities at steady-state. Our evaluation shows that all method pairs provide accurate steady-state and gradient values, and that the two method pairs that combine numerical integration for the steady-state with a tailored method for the sensitivities at steady-state were the most robust, and amongst the most computationally-efficient. We also observed that while Newton's method for steady-state computation yields a substantial speedup compared to numerical integration, it may lead to a large number of simulation failures. Overall, our study provides a concise overview across current methods for computing sensitivities at steady state. While our study shows that there is no universally-best method pair, it also provides guidance to modelers in choosing the right methods for a problem at hand.
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.