ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2026
Does Timing Matter? Exploring the Effects of Measurement Error on Models.
Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measurement error is an unavoidable feature of experimental data collection. It is common in mathematical biology to consider measurement error in the dependent variable. However, less attention has been given to errors in the independent variable. This work is focussed on the effects of independent variable measurement error in the biological sciences and the available statistical methods to account for these errors when performing parameter inference. Through a series of synthetic data studies, the effects of various error models are investigated, with a particular focus given to error in the time a measurement is taken. Across many scenarios, parameter inference proves robust to these errors, even without directly accounting for them. However, we find some systems, such as oscillating systems, are particularly susceptible to these errors and parameter estimates become biased. To aid researchers in the biological sciences, we review some statistical methods to correct for measurement error. We assess the applicability of these methods in a biological context by considering data availability and necessary assumptions for the methods. We find measurement error can have non-trivial and counter-intuitive effects on parameter inference and suggest assessing the available data should be an integral step in the modelling workflow. This allows researchers to identify when the integration of statistical methods to correct for measurement error are warranted.
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.