Why the study?
Widespread disagreement and ambiguity about what constitutes model validity impairs the usefulness and credibility of physiological modeling in real-world decision-making.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Review
Ambiguity in physiological model validity undermines credibility for clinical and regulatory decisions; leaves open standardized validation frameworks.
In this review, we discuss the science of model validation as it applies to physiological modeling. There is widespread disagreement and ambiguity about what constitutes model validity. In areas in which models affect real-world decision-making, including within the clinic, in regulatory science, or in the design and engineering of novel therapeutics, this question is of critical importance. Without an answer, it impairs the usefulness of models and casts a shadow over model credibility in all domains. To address this question, we examine the use of nonmathematical models in physiological research, in medical practice, and in engineering to see how models in other domains are used and accepted. We reflect on historic physiological models and how they have been presented to the scientific community. Finally, we look at various validation frameworks that have been proposed as potential solutions during the past decade.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pruett et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: