4.4 Article

The Art and Science of Building a Computational Model to Understand Hemostasis

Journal

SEMINARS IN THROMBOSIS AND HEMOSTASIS
Volume 47, Issue 2, Pages 129-138

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722861

Keywords

blood coagulation; platelets; hemodynamics; theoretical models; computer simulation

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01HL120728, R01HL151984]
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET-1351672, DMS-1848221]
  3. Army Research Office [ARO-12369656]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Computational models in studying hemostasis and thrombosis are crucial, but their construction requires integration with experimental data. This article presents six questions to guide model builders, ensuring the quality and credibility of the models.
Computational models of various facets of hemostasis and thrombosis have increased substantially in the last decade. These models have the potential to make predictions that can uncover new mechanisms within the complex dynamics of thrombus formation. However, these predictions are only as good as the data and assumptions they are built upon, and therefore model building requires intimate coupling with experiments. The objective of this article is to guide the reader through how a computational model is built and how it can inform and be refined by experiments. This is accomplished by answering six questions facing the model builder: (1) Why make a model? (2) What kind of model should be built? (3) How is the model built? (4) Is the model a good model? (5) Do we believe the model? (6) Is the model useful? These questions are answered in the context of a model of thrombus formation that has been successfully applied to understanding the interplay between blood flow, platelet deposition, and coagulation and in identifying potential modifiers of thrombin generation in hemophilia A.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available