ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2023
A Continuation Technique for Maximum Likelihood Estimators in Biological Models.
Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Nonparametric Approach to Practical Identifiability of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2026Article
- Reducing phenotype-structured partial differential equations models of cancer evolution to systems of ordinary differential equations: a generalised moment dynamics approach.Journal of mathematical biology · 2025Article
- A multiscale model of the action of a capsid assembly modulator for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Structured methods for parameter inference and uncertainty quantification for mechanistic models in the life sciences.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Making Predictions Using Poorly Identified Mathematical Models.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2024Article
- Modeling resistance to the broadly neutralizing antibody PGT121 in people living with HIV-1.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Minimally sufficient experimental design using identifiability analysis.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimating model parameters is a crucial step in mathematical modelling and typically involves minimizing the disagreement between model predictions and experimental data. This calibration data can change throughout a study, particularly if modelling is performed simultaneously with the calibration experiments, or during an on-going public health crisis as in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the optimal parameter set, or maximal likelihood estimator (MLE), is a function of the experimental data set. Here, we develop a numerical technique to predict the evolution of the MLE as a function of the experimental data. We show that, when considering perturbations from an initial data set, our approach is significantly more computationally efficient that re-fitting model parameters while producing acceptable model fits to the updated data. We use the continuation technique to develop an explicit functional relationship between fit model parameters and experimental data that can be used to measure the sensitivity of the MLE to experimental data. We then leverage this technique to select between model fits with similar information criteria, a priori determine the experimental measurements to which the MLE is most sensitive, and suggest additional experiment measurements that can resolve parameter uncertainty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.