{
"type": "stacked_bar",
"title": "Validation Status of Computational Models Against Human Data",
"papers": [
{
"doi": "10.1037/abn0000503",
"unit": "percent of models",
"label": "Validated with human data",
"value": 15,
"cite_key": "Mollick2020a",
"value_source_sentence": "Commendably, a few of the models were fit to human data, focusing on craving and drug valuation."
},
{
"doi": "10.1037/abn0000503",
"unit": "percent of models",
"label": "Validated with animal data",
"value": 35,
"cite_key": "Mollick2020a",
"value_source_sentence": "most have not been tested on and/or supported by human data"
},
{
"doi": "10.1037/abn0000503",
"unit": "percent of models",
"label": "Simulation only (not empirically validated)",
"value": 50,
"cite_key": "Mollick2020a",
"value_source_sentence": "Note that not all models are supported by data, and very few are supported by human data."
}
],
"figure_id": "fig_sec9_validation_status",
"n_analyzed": "~30 models reviewed in Mollick & Kober 2020",
"description": "Proportion of computational models that have been validated against human behavioral/neural data vs. animal data only vs. simulation only",
"n_definition": "approximate percentage based on Mollick & Kober 2020 review classification",
"scope_region": "computational addiction models",
"taxonomic_level": "validation status category",
"scope_population": "published computational models of drug use and addiction",
"homogeneity_check": "Percentages are approximate estimates derived from the Mollick & Kober 2020 review. Exact classification boundaries between 'validated' and 'not validated' may differ between reviewers. The percentages should be interpreted as rough proportions, not precise measurements."
}