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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paun, L. Mihaela, Colebank, Mitchel J., Olufsen, Mette S., Hill, Nicholas A., Husmeier, Dirk
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