ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
Incorporating Additional Evidence as Prior Information to Resolve Non-Identifiability in Bayesian Disease Model Calibration: A Tutorial.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychological mediators of the associations between adverse and benevolent childhood experiences and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of traumatic stress · 2026Pooled it
- Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling Framework for Cancer Interventions and Population Health in R (DESCIPHR): An Open-Source Pipeline.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- A multi-method study evaluating the inference of compartmental model parameters from a generative agent-based model.Infectious Disease Modelling · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disease models are used to examine the likely impact of therapies, interventions, and public policy changes. Ensuring that these are well calibrated on the basis of available data and that the uncertainty in their projections is properly quantified is an important part of the process. The question of non-identifiability poses a challenge to disease model calibration where multiple parameter sets generate identical model outputs. For statisticians evaluating the impact of policy interventions such as screening or vaccination, this is a critical issue. This study explores the use of the Bayesian framework to provide a natural way to calibrate models and address non-identifiability in a probabilistic fashion in the context of disease modeling. We present Bayesian approaches for incorporating expert knowledge and external data to ensure that appropriately informative priors are specified on the joint parameter space. These approaches are applied to two common disease models: a basic susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) model and a much more complex agent-based model which has previously been used to address public policy questions in HPV and cervical cancer. The conditions that allow the problem of non-identifiability to be resolved are demonstrated for the SIS model. For the larger HPV model, an overview of the findings is presented, but of key importance is a discussion on how the non-identifiability impacts the calibration process. Through case studies, we demonstrate how informative priors can help resolve non-identifiability and improve model inference. We also discuss how sensitivity analysis can be used to assess the impact of prior specifications on model results. Overall, this work provides an important tutorial for researchers interested in applying Bayesian methods to calibrate models and handle non-identifiability in disease models.
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.