The trade-off between parsimony and model complexity for understanding biomedical mechanisms from mathematical models
TL;DR
The results highlight the limits of relying purely on statistical metrics for model selection, particularly when the goal is to obtain biological insight and underscore the importance of balancing model complexity to avoid overfitting and parameter unidentifiability.
Abstract
Mechanistic mathematical models have been used extensively to provide a deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, including unveiling the regulation of tumour growth and its response to various treatments. However, given the breadth of biological regulatory mechanisms, these models are frequently large and thus prone to potential issues with parameter identifiability. Statistical metrics like the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria can help identify a parsimonious model by balancing goodness of fit against model complexity. Yet simple models may fail to provide sufficient biological insight if they do not adequately capture known physiological processes or mechanisms. A modeller must therefore balance hypothesis generation and biological learning with model tractability. Here, we illustrate this balance using models of ovarian cancer growth and treatment response to cisplatin and immune checkpoint blockade in homologous recombination (HR)-deficient and HR-proficient immunocompetent mouse models. We develop a hierarchy of mathematical models of increasing complexity to describe tumour growth, treatment response, and immune dynamics. Our results highlight the limits of relying purely on statistical metrics for model selection, particularly when the goal is to obtain biological insight and underscore the importance of balancing model complexity to avoid overfitting and parameter unidentifiability.