ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2021
Mathematical Modelling in Biomedicine: A Primer for the Curious and the Skeptic.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Developing Theoretical Models for Atherosclerotic Lesions: A Methodological Approach Using Interdisciplinary Insights.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Mathematical model explains differences in Omicron and Delta SARS-CoV-2 dynamics in Caco-2 and Calu-3 cells.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Vitamin D and Systems Biology.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Relating simulation studies by provenance-Developing a family of Wnt signaling models.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In most disciplines of natural sciences and engineering, mathematical and computational modelling are mainstay methods which are usefulness beyond doubt. These disciplines would not have reached today's level of sophistication without an intensive use of mathematical and computational models together with quantitative data. This approach has not been followed in much of molecular biology and biomedicine, however, where qualitative descriptions are accepted as a satisfactory replacement for mathematical rigor and the use of computational models is seen by many as a fringe practice rather than as a powerful scientific method. This position disregards mathematical thinking as having contributed key discoveries in biology for more than a century, e.g., in the connection between genes, inheritance, and evolution or in the mechanisms of enzymatic catalysis. Here, we discuss the role of computational modelling in the arsenal of modern scientific methods in biomedicine. We list frequent misconceptions about mathematical modelling found among biomedical experimentalists and suggest some good practices that can help bridge the cognitive gap between modelers and experimental researchers in biomedicine. This manuscript was written with two readers in mind. Firstly, it is intended for mathematical modelers with a background in physics, mathematics, or engineering who want to jump into biomedicine. We provide them with ideas to motivate the use of mathematical modelling when discussing with experimental partners. Secondly, this is a text for biomedical researchers intrigued with utilizing mathematical modelling to investigate the pathophysiology of human diseases to improve their diagnostics and treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.