↓ Skip to main content

Validation and selection of ODE based systems biology models: how to arrive at more reliable decisions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
Validation and selection of ODE based systems biology models: how to arrive at more reliable decisions
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12918-015-0180-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dicle Hasdemir, Huub C.J Hoefsloot, Age K. Smilde

Abstract

Most ordinary differential equation (ODE) based modeling studies in systems biology involve a hold-out validation step for model validation. In this framework a pre-determined part of the data is used as validation data and, therefore it is not used for estimating the parameters of the model. The model is assumed to be validated if the model predictions on the validation dataset show good agreement with the data. Model selection between alternative model structures can also be performed in the same setting, based on the predictive power of the model structures on the validation dataset. However, drawbacks associated with this approach are usually under-estimated. We have carried out simulations by using a recently published High Osmolarity Glycerol (HOG) pathway from S.cerevisiae to demonstrate these drawbacks. We have shown that it is very important how the data is partitioned and which part of the data is used for validation purposes. The hold-out validation strategy leads to biased conclusions, since it can lead to different validation and selection decisions when different partitioning schemes are used. Furthermore, finding sensible partitioning schemes that would lead to reliable decisions are heavily dependent on the biology and unknown model parameters which turns the problem into a paradox. This brings the need for alternative validation approaches that offer flexible partitioning of the data. For this purpose, we have introduced a stratified random cross-validation (SRCV) approach that successfully overcomes these limitations. SRCV leads to more stable decisions for both validation and selection which are not biased by underlying biological phenomena. Furthermore, it is less dependent on the specific noise realization in the data. Therefore, it proves to be a promising alternative to the standard hold-out validation strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
China 1 2%
Unknown 61 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Other 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 22%
Engineering 5 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 14 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 July 2015.
All research outputs
#12,930,368
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#431
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,744
of 262,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#10
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 262,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.