↓ Skip to main content

Conclusions via unique predictions obtained despite unidentifiability – new definitions and a general method

Overview of attention for article published in FEBS Journal, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Conclusions via unique predictions obtained despite unidentifiability – new definitions and a general method
Published in
FEBS Journal, August 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2012.08725.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gunnar Cedersund

Abstract

It is often predicted that model-based data analysis will revolutionize biology, just as it has physics and engineering. A widely used tool within such analysis is hypothesis testing, which focuses on model rejections. However, the fact that a systems biology model is non-rejected is often a relatively weak statement, as such models usually are highly over-parametrized with respect to the available data, and both parameters and predictions may therefore be arbitrarily uncertain. For this reason, we formally define and analyse the concept of a core prediction. A core prediction is a uniquely identified property that must be fulfilled if the given model structure is to explain the data, even if the individual parameters are non-uniquely identified. It is shown that such a prediction is as strong a conclusion as a rejection. Furthermore, a new method for core prediction analysis is introduced, which is beneficial for the uncertainty of specific model properties, as the method only characterizes the space of acceptable parameters in the relevant directions. This avoids the curse of dimensionality associated with the generic characterizations used by previously proposed methods. Analysis on examples shows that the new method is comparable to profile likelihood with regard to practical identifiability, and thus generalizes profile likelihood to the more general problem of observability. If used, the concepts and methods presented herein make it possible to distinguish between a conclusion and a mere suggestion, which hopefully will contribute to a more justified confidence in systems biology analyses.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Germany 2 3%
Switzerland 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Hungary 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 47 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 31%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Mathematics 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 16 28%
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 30 July 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from FEBS Journal
#10,134
of 12,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,934
of 187,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from FEBS Journal
#35
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,259 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 187,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.