↓ Skip to main content

Connecting Local and Global Sensitivities in a Mathematical Model for Wound Healing

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Connecting Local and Global Sensitivities in a Mathematical Model for Wound Healing
Published in
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11538-015-0123-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nitin A. Krishna, Hannah M. Pennington, Canaan D. Coppola, Marisa C. Eisenberg, Richard C. Schugart

Abstract

The process of wound healing is governed by complex interactions between proteins and the extracellular matrix, involving a range of signaling pathways. This study aimed to formulate, quantify, and analyze a mathematical model describing interactions among matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-1), their inhibitors (TIMP-1), and extracellular matrix in the healing of a diabetic foot ulcer. De-identified patient data for modeling were taken from Muller et al. (Diabet Med 25(4):419-426, 2008), a research outcome that collected average physiological data for two patient subgroups: "good healers" and "poor healers," where classification was based on rate of ulcer healing. Model parameters for the two patient subgroups were estimated using least squares. The model and parameter values were analyzed by conducting a steady-state analysis and both global and local sensitivity analyses. The global sensitivity analysis was performed using Latin hypercube sampling and partial rank correlation analysis, while local analysis was conducted through a classical sensitivity analysis followed by an SVD-QR subset selection. We developed a "local-to-global" analysis to compare the results of the sensitivity analyses. Our results show that the sensitivities of certain parameters are highly dependent on the size of the parameter space, suggesting that identifying physiological bounds may be critical in defining the sensitivities.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Mathematics 4 17%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 26%
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 13 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,302,535
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#994
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,650
of 386,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 386,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.