↓ Skip to main content

Parameter Identifiability of Fundamental Pharmacodynamic Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Parameter Identifiability of Fundamental Pharmacodynamic Models
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00590
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L. I. Janzén, Linnéa Bergenholm, Mats Jirstrand, Joanna Parkinson, James Yates, Neil D. Evans, Michael J. Chappell

Abstract

Issues of parameter identifiability of routinely used pharmacodynamics models are considered in this paper. The structural identifiability of 16 commonly applied pharmacodynamic model structures was analyzed analytically, using the input-output approach. Both fixed-effects versions (non-population, no between-subject variability) and mixed-effects versions (population, including between-subject variability) of each model structure were analyzed. All models were found to be structurally globally identifiable under conditions of fixing either one of two particular parameters. Furthermore, an example was constructed to illustrate the importance of sufficient data quality and show that structural identifiability is a prerequisite, but not a guarantee, for successful parameter estimation and practical parameter identifiability. This analysis was performed by generating artificial data of varying quality to a structurally identifiable model with known true parameter values, followed by re-estimation of the parameter values. In addition, to show the benefit of including structural identifiability as part of model development, a case study was performed applying an unidentifiable model to real experimental data. This case study shows how performing such an analysis prior to parameter estimation can improve the parameter estimation process and model performance. Finally, an unidentifiable model was fitted to simulated data using multiple initial parameter values, resulting in highly different estimated uncertainties. This example shows that although the standard errors of the parameter estimates often indicate a structural identifiability issue, reasonably "good" standard errors may sometimes mask unidentifiability issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Researcher 16 24%
Student > Master 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 16%
Mathematics 9 13%
Engineering 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Computer Science 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,399,360
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,045
of 13,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,471
of 415,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#66
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 415,991 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 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 69% of its contemporaries.