Hi
That’s a good result, similar to results in literature, for example, see Fig 3 in [1]. You may wish to do some parameter variation to understand which contribute to the correlation.
Cheers,
Marmaduke
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVB Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
tvb-users+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvb-users/23b07f55-28d9-44ab-b0a0-15ad429e9051n%40googlegroups.com.
Hi,
It is common for models to not match the data perfectly. There are probably ways to improve the fit, but it is also important to consider whether this correlation at a particular point in parameter space is meaningful for the problem at hand and if it is statistically significant for your dataset. Maximizing fit with data by tuning parameters is one way of interpreting the data through the model: given a patient and control group, you may find different parameter values maximize correlation, in turn providing a mechanistic (via model) hypothesis for the pathology. This can occur and be meaningful even with correlations in this range.
If you could give more background on the brain disease you’re studying and what model you’re using, perhaps some other experts here could comment on whether this needs to be improved upon before continuing.
Cheers,
Marmaduke
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvb-users/0ab00218-1718-4732-9816-bb2ce6a99277n%40googlegroups.com.