Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37650951›Full record

ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2023

A Continuation Technique for Maximum Likelihood Estimators in Biological Models.

Tyler Cassidy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Tyler CassidySchool of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. t.cassidy1@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0757-0017

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Models, BiologicalCalibrationHumansMathematical ConceptsPandemicsExperimental designModel calibrationNumerical continuationParameter estimation

Identifiers

PMID37650951
PMCPMC10471725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.