Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40661154›Full record

ArticleComputational statistics2025

Approximate Bayesian inference in a model for self-generated gradient collective cell movement.

Jon Devlin, Agnieszka Borowska, Dirk Husmeier, John Mackenzie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational statistics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Jon DevlinDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Agnieszka BorowskaSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9123-6227
Dirk HusmeierSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1673-7413
John MackenzieDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4412-7057

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article we explore parameter inference in a novel hybrid discrete-continuum model describing the movement of a population of cells in response to a self-generated chemotactic gradient. The model employs a drift-diffusion stochastic process, rendering likelihood-based inference methods impractical. Consequently, we consider approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) methods, which have gained popularity for models with intractable or computationally expensive likelihoods. ABC involves simulating from the generative model, using parameters from generated observations that are "close enough" to the true data to approximate the posterior distribution. Given the plethora of existing ABC methods, selecting the most suitable one for a specific problem can be challenging. To address this, we employ a simple drift-diffusion stochastic differential equation (SDE) as a benchmark problem. This allows us to assess the accuracy of popular ABC algorithms under known configurations. We also evaluate the bias between ABC-posteriors and the exact posterior for the basic SDE model, where the posterior distribution is tractable. The top-performing ABC algorithms are subsequently applied to the proposed cell movement model to infer its key parameters. This study not only contributes to understanding cell movement but also sheds light on the comparative efficiency of different ABC algorithms in a well-defined context.

Indexed as

Approximate Bayesian computationChemotaxisDrift-diffusion modelModel calibrationStochastic differential equations

Identifiers

PMID40661154
PMCPMC12255578

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.