↓ Skip to main content

Gradient Matching Methods for Computational Inference in Mechanistic Models for Systems Biology: A Review and Comparative Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Gradient Matching Methods for Computational Inference in Mechanistic Models for Systems Biology: A Review and Comparative Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00180
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benn Macdonald, Dirk Husmeier

Abstract

Parameter inference in mathematical models of biological pathways, expressed as coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs), is a challenging problem in contemporary systems biology. Conventional methods involve repeatedly solving the ODEs by numerical integration, which is computationally onerous and does not scale up to complex systems. Aimed at reducing the computational costs, new concepts based on gradient matching have recently been proposed in the computational statistics and machine learning literature. In a preliminary smoothing step, the time series data are interpolated; then, in a second step, the parameters of the ODEs are optimized, so as to minimize some metric measuring the difference between the slopes of the tangents to the interpolants, and the time derivatives from the ODEs. In this way, the ODEs never have to be solved explicitly. This review provides a concise methodological overview of the current state-of-the-art methods for gradient matching in ODEs, followed by an empirical comparative evaluation based on a set of widely used and representative benchmark data.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 33%
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 9 17%
Engineering 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Computer Science 5 9%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 12 22%
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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,915
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#3,398
of 6,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,564
of 386,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#40
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,565 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 386,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.