Back

Varying parameter ranges alters both Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient results and phenomenological behavior when modeling the epithelial mesenchymal transition

Gasior, K. I.

2026-06-09 cell biology
10.64898/2026.06.05.730399 bioRxiv
Show abstract

1.Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient (PRCC), usually performed following Latin Hyper-cube Sampling (LHS), is a global sensitivity analysis that quantifies the monotonic relationship between model parameters and the desired output. To carry out this analysis, a range of acceptable parameter values must be known or estimated. However, within a biological context, approximating these values may be difficult. Parameter values and ranges can be taken from different organisms or systems or be estimated to produce qualitative phenomena in the model. Using a mathematical model of the epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) as a test case, this work examines how the parameter ranges chosen prior to analysis can influence LHS-PRCC results and shape subsequent analysis interpretations. Previous LHS-PRCC analysis of this model restricted parameters to {+/-}10% of their original value, which limits the scope and interpretability of parameter influence. Such a small range assumes, in the biological sense, that parameters are well-measured with little variability. Here, this work extends the previous analysis and explores several parameter ranges ({+/-}25%, {+/-}50% of the original value). This work also tests whether, within the {+/-}10%, {+/-}25% and {+/-}50% parameter ranges, the bistable switch present in the original model are maintained. Ultimately, this work showcases how a choice made prior to analysis, such as the accepted parameter ranges for biological rates and values in complex dynamical systems can influence sensitivity analysis results and interpretability. Additionally, these choices can have hidden consequences, such as the loss of phenomenological behavior. Thus, explicit prior knowledge about the appropriate parameter values is needed before using analysis to guide future experiments and model development.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.8%
2
Journal of Theoretical Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.8%
3
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
92 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 7%
8.0%
5
Mathematical Biosciences
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
6
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 5%
6.8%
7
Theoretical Ecology
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.6%
50% of probability mass above
8
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
9
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.4%
10
Mathematical Medicine and Biology: A Journal of the IMA
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
11
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
12
Biosystems
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
13
npj Systems Biology and Applications
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
14
Physical Biology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
15
ACS Synthetic Biology
287 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
16
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
Physical Review E
112 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Infectious Disease Modelling
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Biophysical Journal
631 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
24
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
25
Nonlinear Dynamics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
26
G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%