IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1005980.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulation enabled search for explanatory mechanisms of the fracture healing process

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan C Kennedy
  • Meir Marmor
  • Ralph Marcucio
  • C Anthony Hunt

Abstract

A significant portion of bone fractures fail to heal properly, increasing healthcare costs. Advances in fracture management have slowed because translation barriers have limited generation of mechanism-based explanations for the healing process. When uncertainties are numerous, analogical modeling can be an effective strategy for developing plausible explanations of complex phenomena. We demonstrate the feasibility of engineering analogical models in software to facilitate discovery of biomimetic explanations for how fracture healing may progress. Concrete analogical models—Callus Analogs—were created using the MASON simulation toolkit. We designated a Target Region initial state within a characteristic tissue section of mouse tibia fracture at day-7 and posited a corresponding day-10 Target Region final state. The goal was to discover a coarse-grain analog mechanism that would enable the discretized initial state to transform itself into the corresponding Target Region final state, thereby providing an alternative way to study the healing process. One of nine quasi-autonomous Tissue Unit types is assigned to each grid space, which maps to an 80×80 μm region of the tissue section. All Tissue Units have an opportunity each time step to act based on individualized logic, probabilities, and information about adjacent neighbors. Action causes transition from one Tissue Unit type to another, and simulation through several thousand time steps generates a coarse-grain analog—a theory—of the healing process. We prespecified a minimum measure of success: simulated and actual Target Region states achieve ≥ 70% Similarity. We used an iterative refinement protocol to explore many combinations of Tissue Unit logic and action constraints. Workflows progressed through four stages of analog mechanisms. Similarities of 73–90% were achieved for Mechanisms 2–4. The range of Upper-Level similarities increased to 83–94% when we allowed for uncertainty about two Tissue Unit designations. We have demonstrated how Callus Analog experiments provide domain experts with a fresh medium and tools for thinking about and understanding the fracture healing process.Author summary: Translation barriers have limited the generation of mechanism-based explanations of fracture healing processes. Those barriers help explain why, to date, biological therapeutics have had only a minor impact on fracture management. Alternative approaches are needed, and we present one that is intended to help develop incrementally better mechanism-based explanations of fracture healing phenomena. We created virtual Callus Analogs to simulate how the histologic appearance of a mouse fracture callus may transition from day-7 to day-10. Callus Analogs use software-based model mechanisms, and simulation experiments enable challenging and improving those model mechanisms. During execution, model mechanism operation provides a coarse-grain explanation (a theory) of a four-day portion of the healing process. Simulated day-10 callus histologic images achieved 73–94% Similarity to a corresponding day-10 fracture callus image, thus demonstrating feasibility. Simulated healing provides an alternative perspective on the actual healing process and an alternative way of thinking about plausible fracture healing mechanisms. Our working hypothesis is that the approach can be extended to cover more of the healing process while making features of simulated and actual fracture healing increasingly analogous. The methods presented are intended to be extensible to other research areas that use histologic analysis to investigate and explain tissue level phenomena.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan C Kennedy & Meir Marmor & Ralph Marcucio & C Anthony Hunt, 2018. "Simulation enabled search for explanatory mechanisms of the fracture healing process," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-32, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005980
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005980
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005980&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005980?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis, 2012. "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7391), pages 531-533, March.
    2. Andrew K Smith & Brenden K Petersen & Glen E P Ropella & Ryan C Kennedy & Neil Kaplowitz & Murad Ookhtens & C Anthony Hunt, 2016. "Competing Mechanistic Hypotheses of Acetaminophen-Induced Hepatotoxicity Challenged by Virtual Experiments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-24, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    2. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    3. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    4. Peter Harremoës, 2019. "Replication Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, July.
    5. Bettina Bert & Céline Heinl & Justyna Chmielewska & Franziska Schwarz & Barbara Grune & Andreas Hensel & Matthias Greiner & Gilbert Schönfelder, 2019. "Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, October.
    6. Mark J. McCabe & Frank Mueller-Langer, 2019. "Does Data Disclosure Increase Citations? Empirical Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Leading Economics Journals," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2019-02, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    8. Hajko, Vladimír, 2017. "The failure of Energy-Economy Nexus: A meta-analysis of 104 studies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 771-787.
    9. Oliver Braganza, 2020. "A simple model suggesting economically rational sample-size choice drives irreproducibility," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Stylianos Serghiou & Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis & Kevin W Boyack & Nico Riedel & Joshua D Wallach & John P A Ioannidis, 2021. "Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-26, March.
    11. Marlo M Vernon & E Andrew Balas & Shaher Momani, 2018. "Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    13. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    14. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    15. Baltussen, Guido & Swinkels, Laurens & Van Vliet, Pim, 2021. "Global factor premiums," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(3), pages 1128-1154.
    16. Owen, P. Dorian, 2018. "Replication to assess statistical adequacy," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-16.
    17. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    18. Fecher, Benedikt & Fräßdorf, Mathis & Hebing, Marcel & Wagner, Gert G., 2017. "Replikationen, Reputation und gute wissenschaftliche Praxis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 68(2-3), pages 154-158.
    19. Koessler, Ann-Kathrin & Page, Lionel & Dulleck, Uwe, 2015. "Promoting pro-social behavior with public statements of good intent," MPRA Paper 80072, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 May 2017.
    20. Richard McElreath & Paul E Smaldino, 2015. "Replication, Communication, and the Population Dynamics of Scientific Discovery," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005980. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.