↓ Skip to main content

Models in biology: ‘accurate descriptions of our pathetic thinking’

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 1,105)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
5 blogs
twitter
210 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
6 Google+ users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
636 Mendeley
citeulike
17 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
Models in biology: ‘accurate descriptions of our pathetic thinking’
Published in
BMC Biology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1741-7007-12-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy Gunawardena

Abstract

In this essay I will sketch some ideas for how to think about models in biology. I will begin by trying to dispel the myth that quantitative modeling is somehow foreign to biology. I will then point out the distinction between forward and reverse modeling and focus thereafter on the former. Instead of going into mathematical technicalities about different varieties of models, I will focus on their logical structure, in terms of assumptions and conclusions. A model is a logical machine for deducing the latter from the former. If the model is correct, then, if you believe its assumptions, you must, as a matter of logic, also believe its conclusions. This leads to consideration of the assumptions underlying models. If these are based on fundamental physical laws, then it may be reasonable to treat the model as 'predictive', in the sense that it is not subject to falsification and we can rely on its conclusions. However, at the molecular level, models are more often derived from phenomenology and guesswork. In this case, the model is a test of its assumptions and must be falsifiable. I will discuss three models from this perspective, each of which yields biological insights, and this will lead to some guidelines for prospective model builders.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 210 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 636 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 636 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 <1%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 <1%
Student > Postgraduate 1 <1%
Student > Master 1 <1%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 629 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 <1%
Psychology 1 <1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Social Sciences 1 <1%
Chemistry 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 629 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 162. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#72,780
of 12,298,175 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#19
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,245
of 198,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,298,175 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 198,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.