Search

Knowledge of how a population of cancerous cells progress through the cell cycle is vital if the population is to be treated effectively, as treatment outcome is dependent on the phase distributions of the population. Estimates on the phase distribution may be obtained experimentally however the errors present in these estimates may effect treatment efficacy and planning. If mathematical models are to be used to make accurate, quantitative predictions concerning treatments, whose efficacy is phase dependent, knowledge of the phase distribution is crucial. In this paper it is shown that two different transition rates at the - checkpoint provide a good fit to a growth curve obtained experimentally. However, the different transition functions predict a different phase distribution for the population, but both lying within the bounds of experimental error. Since treatment outcome is effected by the phase distribution of the population this difference may be critical in treatment planning. Using an age-structured population balance approach the cell cycle is modelled with particular emphasis on the - checkpoint. By considering the probability of cells transitioning at the - checkpoint, different transition functions are obtained. A suitable finite difference scheme for the numerical simulation of the model is derived and shown to be stable. The model is then fitted using the different probability transition functions to experimental data and the effects of the different probability transition functions on the model's results are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In genetic association studies, tests for Hardy-Weinberg proportions are often employed as a quality control checking procedure. Missing genotypes are typically discarded prior to testing. In this paper we show that inference for Hardy-Weinberg proportions can be biased when missing values are discarded. We propose to use multiple imputation of missing values in order to improve inference for Hardy-Weinberg proportions. For imputation we employ a multinomial logit model that uses information from allele intensities and/or neighbouring markers. Analysis of an empirical data set of single nucleotide polymorphisms possibly related to colon cancer reveals that missing genotypes are not missing completely at random. Deviation from Hardy-Weinberg proportions is mostly due to a lack of heterozygotes. Inbreeding coefficients estimated by multiple imputation of the missings are typically lowered with respect to inbreeding coefficients estimated by discarding the missings. Accounting for missings by multiple imputation qualitatively changed the results of 10 to 17% of the statistical tests performed. Estimates of inbreeding coefficients obtained by multiple imputation showed high correlation with estimates obtained by single imputation using an external reference panel. Our conclusion is that imputation of missing data leads to improved statistical inference for Hardy-Weinberg proportions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To facilitate analysis and understanding of biological systems, large-scale data are often integrated into models using a variety of mathematical and computational approaches. Such models describe the dynamics of the biological system and can be used to study the changes in the state of the system over time. For many model classes, such as discrete or continuous dynamical systems, there exist appropriate frameworks and tools for analyzing system dynamics. However, the heterogeneous information that encodes and bridges molecular and cellular dynamics, inherent to fine-grained molecular simulation models, presents significant challenges to the study of system dynamics. In this paper, we present an algorithmic information theory based approach for the analysis and interpretation of the dynamics of such executable models of biological systems. We apply a normalized compression distance (NCD) analysis to the state representations of a model that simulates the immune decision making and immune cell behavior. We show that this analysis successfully captures the essential information in the dynamics of the system, which results from a variety of events including proliferation, differentiation, or perturbations such as gene knock-outs. We demonstrate that this approach can be used for the analysis of executable models, regardless of the modeling framework, and for making experimentally quantifiable predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Systematic reviewer authors intending to include all randomized participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. Objective: The objective of this paper is to provide systematic reviewer authors with a relatively simple guidance for addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. Methods: This guide is based on a review of the Cochrane handbook and published methodological research. The guide deals with participants excluded from the analysis who were considered ‘non-adherent to the protocol’ but for whom data are available, and participants with missing data. Results: Systematic reviewer authors should include data from ‘non-adherent’ participants excluded from the primary study authors' analysis but for whom data are available. For missing, unavailable participant data, authors may conduct a complete case analysis (excluding those with missing data) as the primary analysis. Alternatively, they may conduct a primary analysis that makes plausible assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. When the primary analysis suggests important benefit, sensitivity meta-analyses using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility can inform the extent to which risk of bias impacts the confidence in the results of the primary analysis. The more plausible assumptions draw on the outcome event rates within the trial or in all trials included in the meta-analysis. The proposed guide does not take into account the uncertainty associated with assumed events. Conclusions: This guide proposes methods for handling participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. These methods can help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta-analysis results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]