↓ Skip to main content

Structural Identifiability of Systems Biology Models: A Critical Comparison of Methods

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
367 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
375 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
Structural Identifiability of Systems Biology Models: A Critical Comparison of Methods
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0027755
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oana-Teodora Chis, Julio R. Banga, Eva Balsa-Canto

Abstract

Analysing the properties of a biological system through in silico experimentation requires a satisfactory mathematical representation of the system including accurate values of the model parameters. Fortunately, modern experimental techniques allow obtaining time-series data of appropriate quality which may then be used to estimate unknown parameters. However, in many cases, a subset of those parameters may not be uniquely estimated, independently of the experimental data available or the numerical techniques used for estimation. This lack of identifiability is related to the structure of the model, i.e. the system dynamics plus the observation function. Despite the interest in knowing a priori whether there is any chance of uniquely estimating all model unknown parameters, the structural identifiability analysis for general non-linear dynamic models is still an open question. There is no method amenable to every model, thus at some point we have to face the selection of one of the possibilities. This work presents a critical comparison of the currently available techniques. To this end, we perform the structural identifiability analysis of a collection of biological models. The results reveal that the generating series approach, in combination with identifiability tableaus, offers the most advantageous compromise among range of applicability, computational complexity and information provided.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 375 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
Germany 7 2%
United States 6 2%
Canada 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 342 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 114 30%
Researcher 86 23%
Student > Master 37 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 48 13%
Unknown 55 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 76 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 18%
Mathematics 43 11%
Computer Science 22 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 5%
Other 71 19%
Unknown 78 21%
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 22 November 2011.
All research outputs
#15,239,825
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,742
of 193,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,155
of 239,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,689
of 2,704 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 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 193,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 239,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,704 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.