Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Mechanistic Models: Overview of Compartment Models01:21

Mechanistic Models: Overview of Compartment Models

261
Mechanistic models, a category encompassing both physiological and compartmental modeling, differ from empirical models' approaches to incorporating known factors about the systems being modeled. Empirical models describe data with minimal assumptions, while mechanistic models aim to provide a robust description of available data by specifying assumptions and integrating known factors about the system. Compartmental analysis is a key example of a mechanistic model in pharmacokinetics and...
261
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion01:26

Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion

229
Physiological and compartmental models are valuable tools used in studying biological systems. These models rely on differential equations to maintain mass balance within the system, ensuring an accurate representation of the dynamic processes at play.
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
229
Pharmacokinetic Models: Overview01:20

Pharmacokinetic Models: Overview

1.6K
Pharmacokinetic models utilize mathematical analysis to achieve a detailed quantitative understanding of a drug's life cycle within the body. They are instrumental in simulating a drug's pharmacokinetic parameters, predicting drug concentrations over time, optimizing dosage regimens, linking concentrations with pharmacologic activity, and estimating potential toxicity.
There are three primary types of models: empirical, compartment, and physiological. Empirical models, with minimal...
1.6K
Models, Theories, and Laws01:16

Models, Theories, and Laws

8.0K
Scientists frequently use models to help them comprehend a specific collection of phenomena. In physics, a model is a condensed version of a physical system that is too complex to study thoroughly. One such example is the light wave model; unlike water waves, light waves are typically invisible to us. Nonetheless, it is helpful to think of light as being composed of waves, since investigations show that light behaves like water waves. Since it is impossible to visually see what is genuinely...
8.0K
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis01:23

Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis

157
Mechanistic models are utilized in individual analysis using single-source data, but imperfections arise due to data collection errors, preventing perfect prediction of observed data. The mathematical equation involves known values (Xi), observed concentrations (Ci), measurement errors (εi), model parameters (ϕj), and the related function (ƒi) for i number of values. Different least-squares metrics quantify differences between predicted and observed values. The ordinary least...
157
Classification of Systems-II01:31

Classification of Systems-II

385
Continuous-time systems have continuous input and output signals, with time measured continuously. These systems are generally defined by differential or algebraic equations. For instance, in an RC circuit, the relationship between input and output voltage is expressed through a differential equation derived from Ohm's law and the capacitor relation,
385

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Self-driving lab for the data-driven design of single-chain polymer nanoparticles.

Cell press blue·2026
Same author

Case Report: Cortical bone loss, impaired mineralization, and reduced adiposity contributing to chronic bone pain in SFRP4-related skeletal disease with an ALPL variant.

Frontiers in endocrinology·2026
Same author

SAXS Assistant: Automated SAXS analysis for structural discovery in biologics and polymeric nanoparticles.

Biophysical journal·2025
Same author

A Review of the Concept of Time Reversal and the Direction of Time.

Entropy (Basel, Switzerland)·2024
Same author

Quantum ontology without textbooks. Nor overlapping.

European journal for philosophy of science·2024
Same author

Excess degassing drives long-term volcanic unrest at Nevado del Ruiz.

Scientific reports·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 27, 2025

Creating Objects and Object Categories for Studying Perception and Perceptual Learning
14:38

Creating Objects and Object Categories for Studying Perception and Perceptual Learning

Published on: November 2, 2012

12.1K

On the Classification Between -Ontic and -Epistemic Ontological Models.

Andrea Oldofredi1, Cristian López1,2

  • 1Department of Philosophy, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.

Foundations of Physics
|December 3, 2020
PubMed
Summary

The study critiques Harrigan and Spekkens' classification of quantum ontological models, arguing it incorrectly categorizes Einstein's views and overlooks ensemble-based descriptions in the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Keywords:
CompletenessEpistemic quantum statesIncompletenessPerspectival quantum mechanicsRelational quantum mechanicsStatistical interpretation of quantum mechanics

More Related Videos

Heterotypic Three-dimensional In Vitro Modeling of Stromal-Epithelial Interactions During Ovarian Cancer Initiation and Progression
12:42

Heterotypic Three-dimensional In Vitro Modeling of Stromal-Epithelial Interactions During Ovarian Cancer Initiation and Progression

Published on: August 28, 2012

15.4K
Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues
07:34

Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues

Published on: June 3, 2013

17.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 27, 2025

Creating Objects and Object Categories for Studying Perception and Perceptual Learning
14:38

Creating Objects and Object Categories for Studying Perception and Perceptual Learning

Published on: November 2, 2012

12.1K
Heterotypic Three-dimensional In Vitro Modeling of Stromal-Epithelial Interactions During Ovarian Cancer Initiation and Progression
12:42

Heterotypic Three-dimensional In Vitro Modeling of Stromal-Epithelial Interactions During Ovarian Cancer Initiation and Progression

Published on: August 28, 2012

15.4K
Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues
07:34

Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues

Published on: June 3, 2013

17.7K

Area of Science:

  • Philosophy of Physics
  • Quantum Mechanics Foundations

Background:

  • Harrigan and Spekkens (2010) proposed a dichotomy for quantum ontological models: -ontic (state represents reality) and -epistemic (state represents knowledge).
  • Their work suggested Einstein favored an epistemic view of the quantum state .

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically assess the -ontic/-epistemic classification of quantum ontological models.
  • To re-evaluate Einstein's stance on the quantum state within the statistical interpretation.
  • To examine the applicability of the classification to relational and perspectival quantum mechanics.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of the implicit assumptions within the -ontic/-epistemic categorization.
  • Argumentation based on the nature of ontic states in different quantum mechanics interpretations (statistical, relational, perspectival).

Main Results:

  • The classification implicitly assumes ontic states describe single, individual systems with absolute properties.
  • The statistical interpretation, using ensemble-based ontic states, does not fit the -epistemic category.
  • Einstein's view was likely misinterpreted due to the classification's narrow scope.
  • Relational and perspectival quantum mechanics, with their focus on relational properties, challenge the classification's assumptions.

Conclusions:

  • Harrigan and Spekkens' classification is too restrictive for quantum ontological models.
  • A comprehensive classification must account for diverse ontic state descriptions across quantum interpretations.
  • The -ontic/-epistemic framework requires revision to accommodate ensemble and relational properties.