Conceptual modelling: Towards detecting modelling errors in engineering applications

Rapid advancements of modern technologies put high demands on mathematical modelling of engineering systems. Typically, systems are no longer “simple” objects, but rather coupled systems involving multiphysics phenomena, the modelling of which involves coupling of models that describe different phenomena. After constructing a mathematical model, it is essential to analyse the correctness of the coupled models and to detect modelling errors compromising the final modelling result. Broadly, there are two classes of modelling errors: (a) errors related to abstract modelling, eg, conceptual errors concerning the coherence of a model as a whole and (b) errors related to concrete modelling or instance modelling, eg, questions of approximation quality and implementation. Instance modelling errors, on the one hand, are relatively well understood. Abstract modelling errors, on the other, are not appropriately addressed by modern modelling methodologies. The aim of this paper is to initiate a discussion on abstract approaches and their usability for mathematical modelling of engineering systems with the goal of making it possible to catch conceptual modelling errors early and automatically by computer assistant tools. To that end, we argue that it is necessary to identify and employ suitable mathematical abstractions to capture an accurate conceptual description of the process of modelling engineering systems

Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome - when, why, and how?

BACKGROUND: It is often desirable to account for centre-effects in the analysis of multicentre randomised trials, however it is unclear which analysis methods are best in trials with a binary outcome. METHODS: We compared the performance of four methods of analysis (fixed-effects models, random-effects models, generalised estimating equations (GEE), and Mantel-Haenszel) using a re-analysis of a previously reported randomised trial (MIST2) and a large simulation study. RESULTS: The re-analysis of MIST2 found that fixed-effects and Mantel-Haenszel led to many patients being dropped from the analysis due to over-stratification (up to 69% dropped for Mantel-Haenszel, and up to 33% dropped for fixed-effects). Conversely, random-effects and GEE included all patients in the analysis, however GEE did not reach convergence. Estimated treatment effects and p-values were highly variable across different analysis methods. The simulation study found that most methods of analysis performed well with a small number of centres. With a large number of centres, fixed-effects led to biased estimates and inflated type I error rates in many situations, and Mantel-Haenszel lost power compared to other analysis methods in some situations. Conversely, both random-effects and GEE gave nominal type I error rates and good power across all scenarios, and were usually as good as or better than either fixed-effects or Mantel-Haenszel. However, this was only true for GEEs with non-robust standard errors (SEs); using a robust ‘sandwich’ estimator led to inflated type I error rates across most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: With a small number of centres, we recommend the use of fixed-effects, random-effects, or GEE with non-robust SEs. Random-effects and GEE with non-robust SEs should be used with a moderate or large number of centres

Adjusting for multiple prognostic factors in the analysis of randomised trials

Background: When multiple prognostic factors are adjusted for in the analysis of a randomised trial, it is unclear (1) whether it is necessary to account for each of the strata, formed by all combinations of the prognostic factors (stratified analysis), when randomisation has been balanced within each stratum (stratified randomisation), or whether adjusting for the main effects alone will suffice, and (2) the best method of adjustment in terms of type I error rate and power, irrespective of the randomisation method. Methods: We used simulation to (1) determine if a stratified analysis is necessary after stratified randomisation, and (2) to compare different methods of adjustment in terms of power and type I error rate. We considered the following methods of analysis: adjusting for covariates in a regression model, adjusting for each stratum using either fixed or random effects, and Mantel-Haenszel or a stratified Cox model depending on outcome. Results: Stratified analysis is required after stratified randomisation to maintain correct type I error rates when (a) there are strong interactions between prognostic factors, and (b) there are approximately equal number of patients in each stratum. However, simulations based on real trial data found that type I error rates were unaffected by the method of analysis (stratified vs unstratified), indicating these conditions were not met in real datasets. Comparison of different analysis methods found that with small sample sizes and a binary or time-to-event outcome, most analysis methods lead to either inflated type I error rates or a reduction in power; the lone exception was a stratified analysis using random effects for strata, which gave nominal type I error rates and adequate power. Conclusions: It is unlikely that a stratified analysis is necessary after stratified randomisation except in extreme scenarios. Therefore, the method of analysis (accounting for the strata, or adjusting only for the covariates) will not generally need to depend on the method of randomisation used. Most methods of analysis work well with large sample sizes, however treating strata as random effects should be the analysis method of choice with binary or time-to-event outcomes and a small sample size

A comparison of methods to adjust for continuous covariates in the analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Although covariate adjustment in the analysis of randomised trials can be beneficial, adjustment for continuous covariates is complicated by the fact that the association between covariate and outcome must be specified. Misspecification of this association can lead to reduced power, and potentially incorrect conclusions regarding treatment efficacy. METHODS: We compared several methods of adjustment to determine which is best when the association between covariate and outcome is unknown. We assessed (a) dichotomisation or categorisation; (b) assuming a linear association with outcome; (c) using fractional polynomials with one (FP1) or two (FP2) polynomial terms; and (d) using restricted cubic splines with 3 or 5 knots. We evaluated each method using simulation and through a re-analysis of trial datasets. RESULTS: Methods which kept covariates as continuous typically had higher power than methods which used categorisation. Dichotomisation, categorisation, and assuming a linear association all led to large reductions in power when the true association was non-linear. FP2 models and restricted cubic splines with 3 or 5 knots performed best overall. CONCLUSIONS: For the analysis of randomised trials we recommend (1) adjusting for continuous covariates even if their association with outcome is unknown; (2) keeping covariates as continuous; and (3) using fractional polynomials with two polynomial terms or restricted cubic splines with 3 to 5 knots when a linear association is in doubt

The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies

Adjustment for prognostic covariates can lead to increased power in the analysis of randomized trials. However, adjusted analyses are not often performed in practice

'So wide and varied': The origins and character of British information science

This paper examines some characteristics of the ‘British School’ of information science. Three main forces driving the development of the new subject in Britain are identified: the documentation movement; special libraries; and the need for better treatment of scientific and technical information. Five characteristics which, taken together, distinguish the early British approach to information science from those adopted elsewhere are identified: its subject-based nature; its broad approach to information and information science; its status as an academic subject with a strong professional remit; its involvement with, but distinction from, information technology; and its involvement with memory institutions. Lessons are drawn for the future development of the information sciences

Emerging Infectious Disease leads to Rapid Population Decline of Common British Birds

Emerging infectious diseases are increasingly cited as threats to wildlife, livestock and humans alike. They can threaten geographically isolated or critically endangered wildlife populations; however, relatively few studies have clearly demonstrated the extent to which emerging diseases can impact populations of common wildlife species. Here, we report the impact of an emerging protozoal disease on British populations of greenfinch Carduelis chloris and chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, two of the most common birds in Britain. Morphological and molecular analyses showed this to be due to Trichomonas gallinae. Trichomonosis emerged as a novel fatal disease of finches in Britain in 2005 and rapidly became epidemic within greenfinch, and to a lesser extent chaffinch, populations in 2006. By 2007, breeding populations of greenfinches and chaffinches in the geographic region of highest disease incidence had decreased by 35% and 21% respectively, representing mortality in excess of half a million birds. In contrast, declines were less pronounced or absent in these species in regions where the disease was found in intermediate or low incidence. Also, populations of dunnock Prunella modularis, which similarly feeds in gardens, but in which T. gallinae was rarely recorded, did not decline. This is the first trichomonosis epidemic reported in the scientific literature to negatively impact populations of free-ranging non-columbiform species, and such levels of mortality and decline due to an emerging infectious disease are unprecedented in British wild bird populations. This disease emergence event demonstrates the potential for a protozoan parasite to jump avian host taxonomic groups with dramatic effect over a short time period