ArticleArXiv2026
Parameter identifiability of a neuroendocrine-inflammatory model across experimental designs.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mathematical modeling helps us identify and investigate complex mechanisms of function. This is especially useful for understanding inflammation, which is a complex, multiscale process that interacts nonlinearly with other physiological systems. The full potential of these models can only be realized when combined with experimental data through parameter estimation. However, uniquely determining model parameters requires that they are practically identifiable, which can be assessed by multiple, possibly inconsistent, methods. Identifiability can also vary with experimental designs and observation operators. This study investigates this issue by assessing parameter identifiability in a coupled model of the neuroendocrine-inflammatory system. We compare three workflows following a global sensitivity analysis: Fisher-information matrix based identifiability, global optimization with frequentist confidence intervals, and the profile-likelihood. We compare results across six observation operators with and without measurement noise, all of which are experimentally feasible given prior literature. Our results show that Fisher-information-based methods typically lead to larger sets of identifiable parameters while profile-likelihood analyses lead to a smaller number of identifiable parameters. This suggests that, while computationally expensive, the profile-likelihood is necessary for accurately assessing identifiability, and must be recalculated when the experimental design is altered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42818973PMC13622997What 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.