ArticleNPJ systems biology and applications2024
Practical parameter identifiability and handling of censored data with Bayesian inference in mathematical tumour models.
Article in NPJ systems biology and applications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Composite Certainty: Addressing Metric Degeneracy in Parameter Inference for Model-Based Diagnostics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Diffusion model-based parameter estimation in dynamic power systems.Communications engineering · 2026Article
- A Nonparametric Approach to Practical Identifiability of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanistic mathematical models (MMs) are a powerful tool to help us understand and predict the dynamics of tumour growth under various conditions. In this work, we use 5 MMs with an increasing number of parameters to explore how certain (often overlooked) decisions in estimating parameters from data of experimental tumour growth affect the outcome of the analysis. In particular, we propose a framework for including tumour volume measurements that fall outside the upper and lower limits of detection, which are normally discarded. We demonstrate how excluding censored data results in an overestimation of the initial tumour volume and the MM-predicted tumour volumes prior to the first measurements, and an underestimation of the carrying capacity and the MM-predicted tumour volumes beyond the latest measurable time points. We show in which way the choice of prior for the MM parameters can impact the posterior distributions, and illustrate that reporting the most likely parameters and their 95% credible interval can lead to confusing or misleading interpretations. We hope this work will encourage others to carefully consider choices made in parameter estimation and to adopt the approaches we put forward herein.
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.