Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42339494›Full record

ArticleArXiv2026

When is Enough Enough? A Proposed Termination Point for the Number of Replicates in Computational Simulations.

Eric T Lofgren, Kellen Myers, Nina H Fefferman

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Eric T LofgrenPaul G. Allen School for Global Health, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
Kellen MyersNational Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS), University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 37996, USA.
Nina H FeffermanUS NSF Center for Analysis and Prediction of Pandemic Expansion (APPEX), University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 37996, USA.

Funding

Methods and Tools for Understanding Disease Dynamics in Small, Structured PopulationsR35GM147013 · NIGMS · WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Eric T Lofgren · 2022 to 2026
$1.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM147013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational simulation provides a powerful toolkit for in silico experimentation. However, while the field has developed best practices for the design and implementation of such models, there remains ambiguity in discussions about how to understand and/or interpret their results due to their inherent ability to overwhelm traditional frequentist statistics by simply increasing the number of trials simulated. This fails the discipline in two ways: first, it leaves the community unsure of what constitutes a best practice for uniform understanding, and second, it potentially overburdens computational studies that burn clock cycles solely to ensure "enough runs to satisfy peers" without any theoretical underpinning for a definition of "enough". We propose a simple and straightforward standard for when to stop simulating additional trials, the Ω test, designed to be analogous to the function of traditional frequentist P-tests. Community adoption of a reasonable and uniform standard will permit more efficient computational experimentation and clearly communication/interpretation of the findings discovered in this way.

Indexed as

agent-based modelindividual-based modelSimulation modelssimulation powerstatistical significance

Identifiers

PMID42339494
PMCPMC13286023

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.