From simulations to surrogates: Neural networks enhancing burn wound healing predictions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burn injuries trigger substantial inflammation, complicating wound healing and potentially leading to severe systemic complications. Understanding the immune response to burns is crucial for improving treatment. Although agent-based models (ABMs) are valuable for studying these interactions, they are computationally demanding. This paper explores the integration of neural networks (NNs) as surrogate models to approximate and forecast ABM simulation results in predicting cytokine concentrations over time and space. We present the development of a baseline ABM using the CompuCell3D software, simulating the innate immune response and generating extensive cytokine concentration data. This data is processed and prepared for neural network training, involving data cleaning, transformation into suitable formats, and a time-series-aware train-test split. We then implement and assess various neural network architectures. Each model is designed to capture the temporal and spatial dynamics of cytokine concentrations, with adjusted model architectures (kernels, number of layers, neurons per layer) to better suit this problem. The models are evaluated using Mean Squared Error, R-squared, and Mean Absolute Percentage Error. In this paper, we assess how different NN architectures (convolutional neural networks (CNNs), long short-term memory (LSTM) neural networks, attention mechanisms, and physics-informed neural networks (PINNs)) predict the concentration of cytokines in this biological system. We find that STA-LSTM generally performs best across statistical metrics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it