↓ Skip to main content

Strong Inference in Mathematical Modeling: A Method for Robust Science in the Twenty-First Century

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Strong Inference in Mathematical Modeling: A Method for Robust Science in the Twenty-First Century
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vitaly V. Ganusov

Abstract

While there are many opinions on what mathematical modeling in biology is, in essence, modeling is a mathematical tool, like a microscope, which allows consequences to logically follow from a set of assumptions. Only when this tool is applied appropriately, as microscope is used to look at small items, it may allow to understand importance of specific mechanisms/assumptions in biological processes. Mathematical modeling can be less useful or even misleading if used inappropriately, for example, when a microscope is used to study stars. According to some philosophers (Oreskes et al., 1994), the best use of mathematical models is not when a model is used to confirm a hypothesis but rather when a model shows inconsistency of the model (defined by a specific set of assumptions) and data. Following the principle of strong inference for experimental sciences proposed by Platt (1964), I suggest "strong inference in mathematical modeling" as an effective and robust way of using mathematical modeling to understand mechanisms driving dynamics of biological systems. The major steps of strong inference in mathematical modeling are (1) to develop multiple alternative models for the phenomenon in question; (2) to compare the models with available experimental data and to determine which of the models are not consistent with the data; (3) to determine reasons why rejected models failed to explain the data, and (4) to suggest experiments which would allow to discriminate between remaining alternative models. The use of strong inference is likely to provide better robustness of predictions of mathematical models and it should be strongly encouraged in mathematical modeling-based publications in the Twenty-First century.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Master 8 13%
Professor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 20%
Engineering 10 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 10 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#7,428,807
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#8,045
of 24,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,185
of 364,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#202
of 482 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,911 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 364,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 482 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.