↓ Skip to main content

Rational selection of experimental readout and intervention sites for reducing uncertainties in computational model predictions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rational selection of experimental readout and intervention sites for reducing uncertainties in computational model predictions
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0436-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert J Flassig, Iryna Migal, Esther van der Zalm, Liisa Rihko-Struckmann, Kai Sundmacher

Abstract

BackgroundUnderstanding the dynamics of biological processes can substantially be supported by computational models in the form of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODE). Typically, this model class contains many unknown parameters, which are estimated from inadequate and noisy data. Depending on the ODE structure, predictions based on unmeasured states and associated parameters are highly uncertain, even undetermined. For given data, profile likelihood analysis has been proven to be one of the most practically relevant approaches for analyzing the identifiability of an ODE structure, and thus model predictions. In case of highly uncertain or non-identifiable parameters, rational experimental design based on various approaches has shown to significantly reduce parameter uncertainties with minimal amount of effort.ResultsIn this work we illustrate how to use profile likelihood samples for quantifying the individual contribution of parameter uncertainty to prediction uncertainty. For the uncertainty quantification we introduce the profile likelihood sensitivity (PLS) index. Additionally, for the case of several uncertain parameters, we introduce the PLS entropy to quantify individual contributions to the overall prediction uncertainty. We show how to use these two criteria as an experimental design objective for selecting new, informative readouts in combination with intervention site identification. The characteristics of the proposed multi-criterion objective are illustrated with an in silico example. We further illustrate how an existing practically non-identifiable model for the chlorophyll fluorescence induction in a photosynthetic organism, D. salina, can be rendered identifiable by additional experiments with new readouts.ConclusionsHaving data and profile likelihood samples at hand, the here proposed uncertainty quantification based on prediction samples from the profile likelihood provides a simple way for determining individual contributions of parameter uncertainties to uncertainties in model predictions. The uncertainty quantification of specific model predictions allows identifying regions, where model predictions have to be considered with care. Such uncertain regions can be used for a rational experimental design to render initially highly uncertain model predictions into certainty. Finally, our uncertainty quantification directly accounts for parameter interdependencies and parameter sensitivities of the specific prediction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 35%
Researcher 2 12%
Lecturer 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 3 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Chemical Engineering 2 12%
Computer Science 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,315,142
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,371
of 7,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,086
of 352,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#96
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.