Model predictions appear to be consistent with reported laboratory fluidized-bed reduction data.
The discrepancies in growth rates among AFM measurements and model predictions appear to mainly arise from differences in step densities, and the step velocities were consistent among the AFM measurements as well as with both model predictions.
The differences between model predictions appear to be mainly related to the hydraulic datasets used for model parameterisation and, to a much lesser extent, to the conceptual modelling approach (equivalent porous medium vs. discrete fracture networks), the model dimensionality (two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional), and/or the parameterisation approach (forward vs. inverse).
The goodness-of-fit plots for the Bayesian feedback analysis show that model predictions appeared to be accurate in treatment-naïve, adolescent patients ≥12 to <18 years old in the DIONE study treated for 24 weeks (data on file).
The goodness-of-fit plots from the model adjustment containing only the data from the ARIEL once-daily substudy showed that the model predictions appeared to be accurate for children aged ≥3 to <6 years and weighing between 10 and <20 kg, with no detectable bias present for individual predictions, indicating that the model performed well (data on file).
It can be seen that the model predictions appear to be slightly shifted (in time) to the right of the experimental results; however, this was expected given that the long heat up time in the experimental set-up caused the experimental data to reflect that a significant amount of hydrolysis had already occurred by t=0.
The mean model prediction also appears to be quite close to many of the means reported in the literature.
The GRNN model prediction of MMP appears to be very reasonable, yielding an average absolute error of approximately 3.3%%.
While this paper was in preparation, two other works discussing null models in ncRNA prediction appeared in the literature [49], [50].
It appears therefore that although the model prediction about cell division symmetry was well supported by the experiments, the predictions about growth rate and growth yields were not quite well supported.
