An in-silico analysis of experimental designs to study ventricular function: A focus on the right ventricle
Open accessAbstract
In-vivo studies of pulmonary vascular disease and pulmonary hypertension (PH) have provided key insight into the progression of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Additional in-silico experiments using multiscale computational models have provided further details into biventricular mechanics and hemodynamic function in the presence of PH, yet few have assessed whether model parameters are practically identifiable prior to data collection. Moreover, none have used modeling to devise synergistic experimental designs. To address this knowledge gap, we conduct a practical identifiability analysis of a multiscale cardiovascular model across four simulated experimental designs. We determine a set of parameters using a combination of Morris screening and local sensitivity analysis, and test for practical identifiability using profile likelihood-based confidence intervals. We employ Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques to quantify parameter and model forecast uncertainty in the presence of noise corrupted data. Our results show that model calibration to only RV pressure suffers from practical identifiability issues and suffers from large forecast uncertainty in output space. In contrast, parameter and model forecast uncertainty is substantially reduced once additional left ventricular (LV) pressure and volume data is included. A comparison between single point systolic and diastolic LV data and continuous, time-dependent LV pressure-volume data reveals that at least some quantitative data from both ventricles should be included for future experimental studies.
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
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 24
- Authors
- Colebank, M. J., & Chesler, N. C.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Colebank, Mitchel J.
- Venue
- PLoS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2022-09-20
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e1010017
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC9524687
- OpenAlex
- W4297857033
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 2.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2022-09-30)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL154624, R01HL147590)
- National Center for Research Resources (TL1 TR001415)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Pulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
- Keywords
- right ventricular dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, practical identifiability, experimental design, parameter identifiability, forecast uncertainty, pulmonary vascular disease, hemodynamics
- MeSH terms
- Heart Ventricles, Humans, Hypertension, Pulmonary, Research Design, Likelihood Functions, Ventricular Function, Ventricular Dysfunction, Right
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