Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Oct;7(10):e1002132. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002132. Epub 2011 Oct 6.
Computational models in biomedicine rely on biological and clinical assumptions. The selection of these assumptions contributes substantially to modeling success or failure. Assumptions used by experts at the cutting edge of research, however, are rarely explicitly described in scientific publications. One can directly collect and assess some of these assumptions through interviews and surveys. Here we investigate diversity in expert views about a complex biological phenomenon, the process of cancer metastasis. We harvested individual viewpoints from 28 experts in clinical and molecular aspects of cancer metastasis and summarized them computationally. While experts predominantly agreed on the definition of individual steps involved in metastasis, no two expert scenarios for metastasis were identical. We computed the probability that any two experts would disagree on k or fewer metastatic stages and found that any two randomly selected experts are likely to disagree about several assumptions. Considering the probability that two or more of these experts review an article or a proposal about metastatic cascades, the probability that they will disagree with elements of a proposed model approaches 1. This diversity of conceptions has clear consequences for advance and deadlock in the field. We suggest that strong, incompatible views are common in biomedicine but largely invisible to biomedical experts themselves. We built a formal Markov model of metastasis to encapsulate expert convergence and divergence regarding the entire sequence of metastatic stages. This model revealed stages of greatest disagreement, including the points at which cancer enters and leaves the bloodstream. The model provides a formal probabilistic hypothesis against which researchers can evaluate data on the process of metastasis. This would enable subsequent improvement of the model through Bayesian probabilistic update. Practically, we propose that model assumptions and hunches be harvested systematically and made available for modelers and scientists.
生物医学中的计算模型依赖于生物学和临床假设。这些假设的选择对建模的成功或失败有很大的影响。然而,处于研究前沿的专家使用的假设在科学出版物中很少被明确描述。人们可以通过访谈和调查直接收集和评估其中的一些假设。在这里,我们研究了专家对一个复杂的生物学现象——癌症转移过程的观点多样性。我们从 28 位癌症转移临床和分子方面的专家那里收集了个人观点,并进行了计算总结。尽管专家们主要同意转移过程中涉及的各个步骤的定义,但没有两个专家的转移场景是完全相同的。我们计算了任意两个专家在 k 个或更少的转移阶段上存在分歧的概率,发现任意两个随机选择的专家在几个假设上很可能存在分歧。考虑到两个或更多这些专家审查一篇关于转移级联的文章或提案的概率,他们不同意所提议模型的元素的概率接近 1。这种概念上的多样性对该领域的进展和僵局都有明显的影响。我们认为,强烈的、不兼容的观点在生物医学中很常见,但生物医学专家自己却在很大程度上没有意识到这一点。我们建立了一个转移性的正式马尔可夫模型,来描述专家在整个转移阶段序列上的收敛和分歧。该模型揭示了分歧最大的阶段,包括癌症进入和离开血液系统的点。该模型提供了一个正式的概率假设,研究人员可以用它来评估转移过程的数据。这将使研究人员能够通过贝叶斯概率更新来改进模型。实际上,我们建议系统地收集模型假设和猜测,并将其提供给建模者和科学家。