Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model

Wilkinson, Richard D.; Worden, Keith; Walmsley, John; Dos Santos, Rodrigo Weber; Riabiz, Marina; Pathmanathan, Pras; Panfilov, Alexander V.; Novaes, Gustavo Montes; Houston, Charles; Delhaas, Tammo; Cantwell, Chris D.; Beattie, Kylie A.; Aboelkassem, Yasser; Ghosh, Sanmitra; Lei, Chon Lok; Mirams, Gary R.; Whittaker, Dominic G.

Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model Thumbnail


Authors

Richard D. Wilkinson

Keith Worden

John Walmsley

Rodrigo Weber Dos Santos

Marina Riabiz

Pras Pathmanathan

Alexander V. Panfilov

Gustavo Montes Novaes

Charles Houston

Tammo Delhaas

Chris D. Cantwell

Kylie A. Beattie

Yasser Aboelkassem

Sanmitra Ghosh

Chon Lok Lei

Dominic G. Whittaker



Abstract

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is a vital step in using mathematical models and simulations to take decisions. The field of cardiac simulation has begun to explore and adopt UQ methods to characterize uncertainty in model inputs and how that propagates through to outputs or predictions; examples of this can be seen in the papers of this issue. In this review and perspective piece, we draw attention to an important and under-addressed source of uncertainty in our predictions-that of uncertainty in the model structure or the equations themselves. The difference between imperfect models and reality is termed model discrepancy, and we are often uncertain as to the size and consequences of this discrepancy. Here, we provide two examples of the consequences of discrepancy when calibrating models at the ion channel and action potential scales. Furthermore, we attempt to account for this discrepancy when calibrating and validating an ion channel model using different methods, based on modelling the discrepancy using Gaussian processes and autoregressive-moving-average models, then highlight the advantages and shortcomings of each approach. Finally, suggestions and lines of enquiry for future work are provided. This article is part of the theme issue 'Uncertainty quantification in cardiac and cardiovascular modelling and simulation'.

Citation

Wilkinson, R. D., Worden, K., Walmsley, J., Dos Santos, R. W., Riabiz, M., Pathmanathan, P., …Whittaker, D. G. (2020). Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model. Philosophical Transactions A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 378(2173), 20190349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0349

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Apr 21, 2020
Online Publication Date May 25, 2020
Publication Date Jun 12, 2020
Deposit Date Apr 21, 2020
Publicly Available Date Apr 23, 2020
Journal Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences
Electronic ISSN 1471-2962
Publisher Royal Society, The
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 378
Issue 2173
Pages 20190349
DOI https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0349
Keywords General Engineering; General Physics and Astronomy; General Mathematics
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/4324704
Publisher URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2019.0349
Additional Information Accepted: 2020-04-21; Published: 2020-05-25

Files

Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model (1.4 Mb)
PDF




You might also like



Downloadable Citations