4.7 Article

Bayesian ranking of biochemical system models

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 833-839

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm607

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0401466] Funding Source: Medline
  2. EPSRC [EP/E052029/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. MRC [G0401466] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E052029/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G0401466] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: There often are many alternative models of a biochemical system. Distinguishing models and finding the most suitable ones is an important challenge in Systems Biology, as such model ranking, by experimental evidence, will help to judge the support of the working hypotheses forming each model. Bayes factors are employed as a measure of evidential preference for one model over another. Marginal likelihood is a key component of Bayes factors, however computing the marginal likelihood is a difficult problem, as it involves integration of nonlinear functions in multidimensional space. There are a number of methods available to compute the marginal likelihood approximately. A detailed investigation of such methods is required to find ones that perform appropriately for biochemical modelling. Results: We assess four methods for estimation of the marginal likelihoods required for computing Bayes factors. The Prior Arithmetic Mean estimator, the Posterior Harmonic Mean estimator, the Annealed Importance Sampling and the Annealing-Melting Integration methods are investigated and compared on a typical case study in Systems Biology. This allows us to understand the stability of the analysis results and make reliable judgements in uncertain context. We investigate the variance of Bayes factor estimates, and highlight the stability of the Annealed Importance Sampling and the Annealing-Melting Integration methods for the purposes of comparing nonlinear 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