Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2026

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
Published on: March 1, 2022
Workflow for generating competing hypothesis from models with parameter uncertainty
David Gomez-Cabrero1, Albert Compte, Jesper Tegner
1Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet , Unit of Computational Medicine, Centre for Molecular Medicine , Solna, Stockholm , Sweden.
Abstract:
Mathematical models are increasingly used in life sciences. However, contrary to other disciplines, biological models are typically over-parametrized and loosely constrained by scarce experimental data and prior knowledge. Recent efforts on analysis of complex models have focused on isolated aspects without considering an integrated approach-ranging from model building to derivation of predictive experiments and refutation or validation of robust model behaviours. Here, we develop such an integrative workflow, a sequence of actions expanding upon current efforts with the purpose of setting the stage for a methodology facilitating an extraction of core behaviours and competing mechanistic hypothesis residing within underdetermined models. To this end, we make use of optimization search algorithms, statistical (machine-learning) classification techniques and cluster-based analysis of the state variables' dynamics and their corresponding parameter sets. We apply the workflow to a mathematical model of fat accumulation in the arterial wall (atherogenesis), a complex phenomena with limited quantitative understanding, thus leading to a model plagued with inherent uncertainty. We find that the mathematical atherogenesis model can still be understood in terms of a few key behaviours despite the large number of parameters. This result enabled us to derive distinct mechanistic predictions from the model despite the lack of confidence in the model parameters. We conclude that building integrative workflows enable investigators to embrace modelling of complex biological processes despite uncertainty in parameters.
Related Concept Videos
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error
Types of Hypothesis Testing
When the null and alternative hypotheses are stated, it is observed that the null hypothesis is a neutral statement against which the alternative hypothesis is tested. The alternative hypothesis is a claim that instead has a certain direction. If the null hypothesis claims that p = 0.5, the alternative hypothesis would be an opposing statement to this and can be put either p > 0.5, p < 0.5, or p ≠ 0.5.
Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error
Null and Alternative Hypotheses
The null hypothesis, denoted by H0 is a statement of no difference between the variables—they are not related. This can often be considered the status quo. As a result if you cannot accept the null, it requires some action.
The alternative hypothesis, denoted by H1 or Ha, is a claim about the population that is...
Statistical Hypothesis Testing
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...
One-Compartment Open Model: Wagner-Nelson and Loo Riegelman Method for ka Estimation
On...
