Cargando…
Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation
This study uses Bayesian inference to quantify the uncertainty of model parameters and haemodynamic predictions in a one-dimensional pulmonary circulation model based on an integration of mouse haemodynamic and micro-computed tomography imaging data. We emphasize an often neglected, though important...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7811590/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33353505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0886 |
_version_ | 1783637531385921536 |
---|---|
author | Paun, L. Mihaela Colebank, Mitchel J. Olufsen, Mette S. Hill, Nicholas A. Husmeier, Dirk |
author_facet | Paun, L. Mihaela Colebank, Mitchel J. Olufsen, Mette S. Hill, Nicholas A. Husmeier, Dirk |
author_sort | Paun, L. Mihaela |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study uses Bayesian inference to quantify the uncertainty of model parameters and haemodynamic predictions in a one-dimensional pulmonary circulation model based on an integration of mouse haemodynamic and micro-computed tomography imaging data. We emphasize an often neglected, though important source of uncertainty: in the mathematical model form due to the discrepancy between the model and the reality, and in the measurements due to the wrong noise model (jointly called ‘model mismatch’). We demonstrate that minimizing the mean squared error between the measured and the predicted data (the conventional method) in the presence of model mismatch leads to biased and overly confident parameter estimates and haemodynamic predictions. We show that our proposed method allowing for model mismatch, which we represent with Gaussian processes, corrects the bias. Additionally, we compare a linear and a nonlinear wall model, as well as models with different vessel stiffness relations. We use formal model selection analysis based on the Watanabe Akaike information criterion to select the model that best predicts the pulmonary haemodynamics. Results show that the nonlinear pressure–area relationship with stiffness dependent on the unstressed radius predicts best the data measured in a control mouse. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7811590 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78115902021-01-29 Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation Paun, L. Mihaela Colebank, Mitchel J. Olufsen, Mette S. Hill, Nicholas A. Husmeier, Dirk J R Soc Interface Life Sciences–Mathematics interface This study uses Bayesian inference to quantify the uncertainty of model parameters and haemodynamic predictions in a one-dimensional pulmonary circulation model based on an integration of mouse haemodynamic and micro-computed tomography imaging data. We emphasize an often neglected, though important source of uncertainty: in the mathematical model form due to the discrepancy between the model and the reality, and in the measurements due to the wrong noise model (jointly called ‘model mismatch’). We demonstrate that minimizing the mean squared error between the measured and the predicted data (the conventional method) in the presence of model mismatch leads to biased and overly confident parameter estimates and haemodynamic predictions. We show that our proposed method allowing for model mismatch, which we represent with Gaussian processes, corrects the bias. Additionally, we compare a linear and a nonlinear wall model, as well as models with different vessel stiffness relations. We use formal model selection analysis based on the Watanabe Akaike information criterion to select the model that best predicts the pulmonary haemodynamics. Results show that the nonlinear pressure–area relationship with stiffness dependent on the unstressed radius predicts best the data measured in a control mouse. The Royal Society 2020-12 2020-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7811590/ /pubmed/33353505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0886 Text en © 2020 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Life Sciences–Mathematics interface Paun, L. Mihaela Colebank, Mitchel J. Olufsen, Mette S. Hill, Nicholas A. Husmeier, Dirk Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation |
title | Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation |
title_full | Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation |
title_fullStr | Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation |
title_short | Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation |
title_sort | assessing model mismatch and model selection in a bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation |
topic | Life Sciences–Mathematics interface |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7811590/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33353505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0886 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT paunlmihaela assessingmodelmismatchandmodelselectioninabayesianuncertaintyquantificationanalysisofafluiddynamicsmodelofpulmonarybloodcirculation AT colebankmitchelj assessingmodelmismatchandmodelselectioninabayesianuncertaintyquantificationanalysisofafluiddynamicsmodelofpulmonarybloodcirculation AT olufsenmettes assessingmodelmismatchandmodelselectioninabayesianuncertaintyquantificationanalysisofafluiddynamicsmodelofpulmonarybloodcirculation AT hillnicholasa assessingmodelmismatchandmodelselectioninabayesianuncertaintyquantificationanalysisofafluiddynamicsmodelofpulmonarybloodcirculation AT husmeierdirk assessingmodelmismatchandmodelselectioninabayesianuncertaintyquantificationanalysisofafluiddynamicsmodelofpulmonarybloodcirculation |