The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Good modeling practice for PAT applications: Propagation of input uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
Abstract
The uncertainty and sensitivity analysis are evaluated for their usefulness as part of the model‐building within Process Analytical Technology applications. A mechanistic model describing a batch cultivation of Streptomyces coelicolor for antibiotic production was used as case study. The input uncertainty resulting from assumptions of the model was propagated using the Monte Carlo procedure to estimate the output uncertainty. The results showed that significant uncertainty exists in the model outputs. Moreover the uncertainty in the biomass, glucose, ammonium and base‐consumption were found low compared to the large uncertainty observed in the antibiotic and off‐gas CO 2 predictions. The output uncertainty was observed to be lower during the exponential growth phase, while higher in the stationary and death phases ‐ meaning the model describes some periods better than others. To understand which input parameters are responsible for the output uncertainty, three sensitivity methods (Standardized Regression Coefficients, Morris and differential analysis) were evaluated and compared. The results from these methods were mostly in agreement with each other and revealed that only few parameters (about 10) out of a total 56 were mainly responsible for the output uncertainty. Among these significant parameters, one finds parameters related to fermentation characteristics such as biomass metabolism, chemical equilibria and mass‐transfer. Overall the uncertainty and sensitivity analysis are found promising for helping to build reliable mechanistic models and to interpret the model outputs properly. These tools make part of good modeling practice, which can contribute to successful PAT applications for increased process understanding, operation and control purposes. © 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 2009
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
Cited by
Principles of Proper Validation: use and abuse of re‐sampling for validation
Esbensen, K. H., & Geladi, P. (2010) · Journal of Chemometrics · doi:10.1002/cem.1310 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- Sin, G., Gernaey, K. V., & Lantz, A. E.
- Venue
- Biotechnology Progress
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1043-1053
- ISSN
- 1520-6033 (ISSN-L)
- 8756-7938
- OpenAlex
- W2104832758
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Good modeling practice for PAT applications: Propagation of input uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/btpr.166
- The paper
- Sin, G., Gernaey, K. V., & Lantz, A. E. (2009). Good modeling practice for PAT applications: Propagation of input uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Biotechnology Progress. https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.166
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.