Paper detail

Global sensitivity analysis based on Gaussian-process metamodelling for complex biomechanical problems

Biomechanical models often need to describe very complex systems, organs or diseases, and hence also include a large number of parameters. One of the attractive features of physics-based models is that in those models (most) parameters have a clear physical meaning. Nevertheless, the determination of these parameters is often very elaborate and costly and shows a large scatter within the population. Hence, it is essential to identify the most important parameter for a particular problem at hand. In order to distinguish parameters which have a significant influence on a specific model output from non-influential parameters, we use sensitivity analysis, in particular the Sobol method as a global variance-based method. However, the Sobol method requires a large number of model evaluations, which is prohibitive for computationally expensive models. We therefore employ Gaussian processes as a metamodel for the underlying full model. Metamodelling introduces further uncertainty, which we also quantify. We demonstrate the approach by applying it to two different problems: nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery in a multiphase tumour-growth model, and arterial growth and remodelling. Even relatively small numbers of evaluations of the full model suffice to identify the influential parameters in both cases and to separate them from non-influential parameters. The approach also allows the quantification of higher-order interaction effects. We thus show that a variance-based global sensitivity analysis is feasible for computationally expensive biomechanical models. Different aspects of sensitivity analysis are covered including a transparent declaration of the uncertainties involved in the estimation process. Such a global sensitivity analysis not only helps to massively reduce costs for experimental determination of parameters but is also highly beneficial for inverse analysis of such complex models.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.