4.7 Review

Adapting modeling and simulation credibility standards to computational systems biology

期刊

JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-023-04290-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computational models are increasingly used in high-impact decision making in science, engineering, and medicine. NASA, FDA, and EMA have developed standards to promote and assess the credibility of computational models. However, there is a need for specific credibility standards in the narrower domain of systems biology models.
Computational models are increasingly used in high-impact decision making in science, engineering, and medicine. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) uses computational models to perform complex experiments that are otherwise prohibitively expensive or require a microgravity environment. Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have began accepting models and simulations as forms of evidence for pharmaceutical and medical device approval. It is crucial that computational models meet a standard of credibility when using them in high-stakes decision making. For this reason, institutes including NASA, the FDA, and the EMA have developed standards to promote and assess the credibility of computational models and simulations. However, due to the breadth of models these institutes assess, these credibility standards are mostly qualitative and avoid making specific recommendations. On the other hand, modeling and simulation in systems biology is a narrower domain and several standards are already in place. As systems biology models increase in complexity and influence, the development of a credibility assessment system is crucial. Here we review existing standards in systems biology, credibility standards in other science, engineering, and medical fields, and propose the development of a credibility standard for systems biology models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据