ArticleArXiv2026
Towards a Unified Framework for Statistical and Mathematical Modeling.
Article in ArXiv, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Within the biological, physical, and social sciences, there are two broad quantitative traditions: statistical and mathematical modeling. Both traditions have the common pursuit of advancing our scientific knowledge, but these traditions have developed largely independently using distinct languages and inferential frameworks. This paper uses the notion of identification from causal inference, a field originating from the statistical modeling tradition, to develop a shared language. I first review foundational identification results for statistical models and then extend these ideas to mathematical models. Central to this framework is the use of bounds, ranges of plausible numerical values, to analyze both statistical and mathematical models. I discuss the implications of this perspective for the interpretation, comparison, and integration of different modeling approaches, and illustrate the framework with a simple pharmacodynamic model for hypertension. To conclude, I describe areas where the approach taken here should be extended in the future. By formalizing connections between statistical and mathematical modeling, this work contributes to a shared framework for quantitative science. My hope is that this work will advance interactions between these two traditions.
Identifiers
41822149PMC12976930What 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.