ArticlePloS one2025
A rubric for assessing conformance to the Ten Rules for credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From FAIR to CURE: guidelines for computational models of biological systems.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The power of computational modeling and simulation (M&S) is realized when the results are credible, and the workflow generates evidence that supports credibility for the context of use. The Committee on Credible Practice of Modeling & Simulation in Healthcare was established to help address the need for processes and procedures to support the credible use of M&S in healthcare and biomedical research. Our community efforts have led to the Ten Rules (TR) for Credible Practice of M&S in life sciences and healthcare. This framework is an outcome of a multidisciplinary investigation from a wide range of stakeholders beginning in 2012. Here, we present a pragmatic rubric for assessing the conformance of an M&S activity to the TR. This rubric considers the ability of an M&S study to communicate how well the study conforms to the Ten Rules for credible practice and facilitate outreach to a wide range of stakeholders from context-specific M&S practitioners to policymakers. It uses an ordinal scale ranging from Insufficient (zero) to Comprehensive (four) that is applicable to each rule, providing a uniform approach for comparing assessments across different reviewers and different modeling studies. We used the rubric to evaluate the conformance of two computational modeling activities: 1. six viral disease (COVID-19) propagation models, and 2. a model of hepatic glycogenolysis with neural innervation and calcium signaling. These examples were used to evaluate the applicability of the rubric and illustrate rubric usage in real-world M&S scenarios including those that bridge scientific M&S with policymaking. The COVID-19 M&S studies were of particular interest because they needed to be quickly operationalized by government and private decision-makers early in the COVID-19 pandemic and were accessible as open-source tools. Our findings demonstrate that the TR rubric represents a systematic tool for assessing the conformance of an M&S activity to codified good practices and enhances the value of the TR for supporting real-world decision-making.
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.