Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40078151›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2025

Challenges and opportunities in uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems.

Louise M Kimpton, L Mihaela Paun, Mitchel J Colebank, Victoria Volodina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Preface to the theme issue 'Uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems (Part 2)'.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Louise M Kimpton *Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4265-5086
L Mihaela Paun *School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8734-8135
Mitchel J Colebank *Department of Biomedical Engineering, Edwards Lifesciences Foundation Cardiovascular Innovation and Research Center, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2294-9124
Victoria Volodina *Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4490-8777

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is an essential aspect of computational modelling and statistical prediction. Multiple applications, including geophysics, climate science and aerospace engineering, incorporate UQ in the development and translation of new technologies. In contrast, the application of UQ to biological and healthcare models is understudied and suffers from several critical knowledge gaps. In an era of personalized medicine, patient-specific modelling, and

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareModels, BiologicalSystems BiologyComputer SimulationHumansPrecision MedicineUncertaintybiology and healthcareclinical decision supportdigital twinsmechanistic modelsuncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID40078151
PMCPMC11904623

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.