↓ Skip to main content

Relational grounding facilitates development of scientifically useful multiscale models

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Relational grounding facilitates development of scientifically useful multiscale models
Published in
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/1742-4682-8-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

C Anthony Hunt, Glen EP Ropella, Tai ning Lam, Andrew D Gewitz

Abstract

We review grounding issues that influence the scientific usefulness of any biomedical multiscale model (MSM). Groundings are the collection of units, dimensions, and/or objects to which a variable or model constituent refers. To date, models that primarily use continuous mathematics rely heavily on absolute grounding, whereas those that primarily use discrete software paradigms (e.g., object-oriented, agent-based, actor) typically employ relational grounding. We review grounding issues and identify strategies to address them. We maintain that grounding issues should be addressed at the start of any MSM project and should be reevaluated throughout the model development process. We make the following points. Grounding decisions influence model flexibility, adaptability, and thus reusability. Grounding choices should be influenced by measures, uncertainty, system information, and the nature of available validation data. Absolute grounding complicates the process of combining models to form larger models unless all are grounded absolutely. Relational grounding facilitates referent knowledge embodiment within computational mechanisms but requires separate model-to-referent mappings. Absolute grounding can simplify integration by forcing common units and, hence, a common integration target, but context change may require model reengineering. Relational grounding enables synthesis of large, composite (multi-module) models that can be robust to context changes. Because biological components have varying degrees of autonomy, corresponding components in MSMs need to do the same. Relational grounding facilitates achieving such autonomy. Biomimetic analogues designed to facilitate translational research and development must have long lifecycles. Exploring mechanisms of normal-to-disease transition requires model components that are grounded relationally. Multi-paradigm modeling requires both hyperspatial and relational grounding.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 49 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 21%
Computer Science 8 15%
Engineering 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Physics and Astronomy 3 6%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 7 13%
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 24 October 2011.
All research outputs
#15,237,301
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#170
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,377
of 131,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 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 286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 131,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.