Table 2.
Relative importance of QSP software features
| Feature | Rank | Mean | P value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Low | Med | High | All | Low | Med | High | ||
| 3.1 Ease of large model development (> 20 state variables) | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 2.68 | 2.17 | 2.70 | 2.82 | 0.0004 |
| 3.7 Support for multiple parameter estimation algorithms | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2.58 | 2.63 | 2.54 | 2.59 | 0.9884 |
| 3.6 Support for scripting tasks that extend the tool's capabilities | 3 | 6.5 | 4 | 4 | 2.51 | 2.38 | 2.50 | 2.55 | 0.7578 |
| 3.12 Built‐in support for flexible visualization of simulation results | 4 | 6.5 | 6 | 3 | 2.51 | 2.38 | 2.46 | 2.56 | 0.3728 |
| 3.8 Handling a large number of parameters including export/import | 5 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2.49 | 2.50 | 2.46 | 2.49 | 0.9254 |
| 3.3 High‐performance parallel computing enabled | 6 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 2.35 | 2.42 | 2.65 | 2.24 | 0.2103 |
| 3.5 Availability of multiple numerical solvers | 6 | 2 | 11 | 6 | 2.35 | 2.58 | 2.26 | 2.35 | 0.8951 |
| 3.4 Support for flexible hardware/software architecture (cluster, cloud, different OS) | 8 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 2.29 | 2.42 | 2.39 | 2.26 | 0.6782 |
| 3.14 Support for VPops manipulation, sampling, and clinical trial simulation | 9 | 11 | 5 | 10 | 2.26 | 2.17 | 2.43 | 2.18 | 0.6951 |
| 3.2 Support for export to SBML or other language | 10 | 1 | 11 | 14 | 2.22 | 2.67 | 2.26 | 2.11 | 0.1321 |
| 3.13 Tools for VPs and VPops creation | 11 | 15 | 9 | 11 | 2.21 | 2.08 | 2.35 | 2.15 | 0.706 |
| 3.15 Low cost of ownership and maintenance | 12 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 2.19 | 2.25 | 2.32 | 2.15 | 0.7344 |
| 3.16 Customer support | 13 | 17 | 13 | 9 | 2.18 | 2.00 | 2.17 | 2.21 | 0.7833 |
| 3.11 Ease of creation of replicated features (e.g., array of cells, similar compounds) | 14 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 2.15 | 2.17 | 2.17 | 2.13 | 0.9902 |
| 3.9 Visual diagrammatic model development (in contrast to purely text‐based) | 15 | 8 | 16 | 15 | 2.08 | 2.33 | 2.13 | 1.97 | 0.0265 |
| 3.10 Modular (plug‐and‐play) model architecture | 16 | 15 | 13 | 16 | 2.03 | 2.08 | 2.17 | 1.95 | 0.7437 |
| 3.18 Integration with additional external tools (e.g., bioinformatics) | 17 | 18 | 18 | 17 | 1.87 | 1.92 | 1.91 | 1.82 | 0.6384 |
| 3.17 Selection of available disease models/platforms for this particular software | 18 | 11 | 17 | 18 | 1.81 | 2.17 | 2.04 | 1.60 | 0.0005 |
Categorical breakdown of feature importance in a hypothetical QSP modeling software platform. The respondents were asked to place features into one of three categories by the order of importance and to assign a score as follows: 3 = most important, 2 = somewhat important, and 1 = least important. Right part of the table presents combined average scores given by the respondents (All) as well as split between groups of respondents based on their experience: low = < 1 year experience, medium = 1–3 years of experience, high = > 3 years of experience. Based on the scores given by all respondents and each group separately features are ranked as shown in middle part of the table.
OS, operating system; QSP, quantitative systems pharmacology; SBML, Systems Biology Markup Language; VPops, virtual populations; VPs, virtual patients.