ArticlePlant phenomics (Washington, D.C.)2024
Practical Identifiability of Plant Growth Models: A Unifying Framework and Its Specification for Three Local Indices.
Article in Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineering principles in plant metabolism: integrating control, mechanics, and transport under dynamic environments.Plant physiology · 2026Review
- Modeling the CD8+ T cell immune response to influenza infection in adult and aged mice.Journal of theoretical biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amid the rise of machine learning models, a substantial portion of plant growth models remains mechanistic, seeking to capture an in-depth understanding of the underlying phenomena governing the system's dynamics. The development of these models typically involves parameter estimation from experimental data. Ensuring that the estimated parameters align closely with their respective "true" values is crucial since they hold biological interpretation, leading to the challenge of uniqueness in the solutions. Structural identifiability analysis addresses this issue under the assumption of perfect observations of system dynamics, whereas practical identifiability considers limited measurements and the accompanying noise. In the literature, definitions for structural identifiability vary only slightly among authors, whereas the concept and quantification of practical identifiability lack consensus, with several indices coexisting. In this work, we provide a unified framework for studying identifiability, accommodating different definitions that need to be instantiated depending on each application case. In a more applicative second step, we focus on three widely used methods for quantifying practical identifiability: collinearity indices, profile likelihood, and average relative error. We show the limitations of their local versions, and we propose a new risk index built on the profile likelihood-based confidence intervals. We illustrate the usefulness of these concepts for plant growth modeling using a discrete-time individual plant growth model, LNAS, and a continuous-time plant population epidemics model. Through this work, we aim to underline the significance of identifiability analysis as a complement to any parameter estimation study and offer guidance to the modeler.
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.