ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2025
Addressing model discrepancy in a clinical model of the oxygen dissociation curve.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing model discrepancy in a clinical model of the oxygen dissociation curve.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- Preface to the theme issue 'Uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems (Part 2)'.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 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
Abstract
Many mathematical models suffer from model discrepancy, posing a significant challenge to their use in clinical decision-making. In this article, we consider methods for addressing this issue. In the first approach, a mathematical model is treated as a black box system, and model discrepancy is defined as an independent and additive term that accounts for the difference between the physical phenomena and the model representation. A Gaussian Process (GP) is commonly used to capture the model discrepancy. An alternative approach is to construct a hybrid grey box model by filling in the incomplete parts of the mathematical model with a neural network. The neural network is used to learn the missing processes by comparing the observations with the model output. To enhance interpretability, the outputs of this non-parametric model can then be regressed into a symbolic form to obtain the learned model. We compare and discuss the effectiveness of these approaches in handling model discrepancy using clinical data from the ICU and the Siggaard-Andersen oxygen status algorithm.This article is part of the theme issue 'Uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems (Part 2)'.
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.