Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Unifying Statistical and Mathematical Modeling Through a Causal Inference Lens

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the identification logic of causal inference — expressing a target parameter as a function of available information — applies to mathematical models, and that a "model-capture" assumption yields partial identification

desk verdict A genuinely useful conceptual framework for unifying statistical and mechanistic modeling through partial identification—but the case study's deterministic outcome model contains a technical error that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.01960 v3 pith:C22GR3PU submitted 2025-11-03 stat.OT q-bio.OT

Paul N Zivich This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.OTq-bio.OT MSC 62D20
keywords causalinferenceidentificationpartialmathematicalmodelingstatisticalmodel-captureassumptionboundspharmacodynamicmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that a mathematical model, one built from theory rather than observations, can be held to the same inferential standard as a statistical model by importing the causal-inference notion of identification. The key move is to define identification as expressing the interest parameter as a function of available information, where theory counts as information. For a mechanistic model, this yields the model-capture assumption: the true probabilities of the mechanism must lie in the model's output ranges. Under that assumption the model outputs a range that provably contains the true effect, a partial identification result. This matters because it gives modelers a principled way to say what a model can and cannot establish, and it turns parameter criticism into a formal question about ranges and their external support.

What carries the argument

The central object is the model-capture assumption, equation (2): the true conditional probabilities Pr(M_a = m | A = a) and Pr(Y_a = 1 | M_a = m, A = a) lie in the images of chosen functions g(a; θ) and h(a, m; λ) over parameter ranges Θ* and Λ*. This is the mathematical-model analogue of the correct model specification assumption used in statistical estimation. The workhorse result is the partial identification bound: under model-capture, ψ lies in Ψ* = [min over Θ*×Λ* of ψ̄(θ,λ), max over Θ*×Λ* of ψ̄(θ,λ)], a proper subset of the full parameter space Ψ. The vacuous/non-vacuous distinction classifies whether the model's functions already span the whole parameter space, forcing all informat

What would settle it

Collect pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic measurements from a representative sample of US adults with systolic blood pressure above 140 and estimate θ0, θ1, λ1, and λ2; if the estimates fall outside Θ*_1=[0.25,0.40], Λ*_1=[16.3,36.3], and Λ*_2=[0.1,13.0], the reported range [0.23,0.91] is not a valid bound on the target-population effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a mathematical model, even with no outcome data, can be analyzed with the same identification machinery used for statistical models. Specify functions g and h for the mechanism and parameter ranges Θ* and Λ*; assume the true conditional probabilities are contained in the images of those functions over those ranges — the "model-capture" assumption — and then the true effect ψ is guaranteed to lie in the interval Ψ* formed by the minimum and maximum of the model output over Θ*×Λ*. This is a partial identification result for ψ, the analogue of nonparametric bounds for statistical models. The paper introduces the vacuous/non-vacuous distinction: a vacuous model'

Load-bearing premise

The computed bounds are about the world only if the true amlodipine concentration and blood-pressure response parameters for the target US population fall inside the ranges borrowed from pharmacokinetic studies of healthy male South Korean volunteers, who differ in body weight.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model-capture assumption holds, the true causal effect is guaranteed to lie inside Ψ*, so even a data-free mechanistic model can make a valid interval claim about a population effect.
  • The vacuous/non-vacuous distinction separates structural choices from parameter choices: with a vacuous model, only the parameter ranges Θ* and Λ* carry information, so all model criticism can be directed at those ranges.
  • The framework settles a debate in epidemiology about exchangeability for mathematical models: exchangeability is not needed for setting treatment A, but it is needed to justify carrying parameter information from an external context into the target context S=1.
  • Bounds width becomes a formal measure of what the external information actually contributes; unjustified narrow ranges are equivalent to unjustified assumptions in a statistical analysis.
  • Model evaluation becomes an audit of each parameter range: the amlodipine case study shows how to flag ranges borrowed from a different population, such as the Korean-to-US body-weight mismatch.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: The same logic suggests a routine sensitivity protocol for mechanistic models: recompute Ψ* as each parameter range is widened or narrowed, making the mapping from assumptions to bounds explicit.
  • Editorial extension: Applied to dynamical systems, the model-capture assumption would require the transition probabilities implied by the differential equations over Θ*,Λ* to contain the true process, connecting the framework to practical identifiability checks.
  • Editorial extension: The Korean-to-US body-weight mismatch is directly testable: reweight the pharmacokinetic parameter data to the NHANES body-weight distribution; if the resulting ranges push Ψ* wider, the case-study conclusion is correspondingly weaker.
  • Editorial extension: The framework implies that calibration of a mechanistic model to observed data is a necessary but not sufficient check on model-capture; good fit cannot prove the true parameters lie in the chosen ranges.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified identification framework for statistical and mathematical models, using the language of partial identification and bounds from causal inference. It reviews nonparametric bounds for causal effects in statistical models, then generalizes identification to mathematical models by defining a 'model-capture' assumption under which the target causal parameter is partially identified as lying in the range of the model's output over specified parameter sets. The paper introduces the distinction between 'vacuous' and 'non-vacuous' mathematical models and applies the framework to a pharmacodynamic model of amlodipine for hypertension, reporting bounds Ψ* = [0.23, 0.91] for the average causal effect. It discusses implications for model evaluation, exchangeability, and calibration, and suggests extensions.

Significance. If the framework holds, it provides a useful shared vocabulary for comparing statistical and mechanistic models, and it sharpens the role of assumptions in mathematical modeling by making the 'model-capture' assumption explicit. The core partial-identification result (ψ ∈ Ψ* under model-capture) is correct, and the paper's review of statistical bounds is accurate. The paper is transparent about the near-tautological nature of the model-capture assumption for vacuous models, which is a strength rather than a flaw in a framework paper. The case study, however, contains a serious technical error in its claim that the outcome model is vacuous, and this error undermines the illustrative value of the example. The central conceptual framework is sound and worth publishing after the case study is repaired.

major comments (2)
  1. [Case Study, Eq. (3) and definition of h] The paper claims that "the image of h is [0,1] for any b,a,m" (Section: Case Study), but h(b,a,m;λ) = I(¯y(...)<140) has image {0,1} for any fixed (b,a,m). This invalidates the claim that the model is vacuous in the sense defined in the Mathematical Models section, where the image of h must equal [0,1]. More importantly, the model-capture assumption (2) then requires Pr(Y^a=1|B=b) to be exactly 0 or 1 for every baseline b, i.e., deterministic response given baseline SBP and drug concentration. The Model Evaluation section discusses parameter-range transportability and body-weight mismatch but does not acknowledge this structural determinism. The reported bounds [0.23,0.91] are therefore conditional on an unexamined deterministic-response assumption. Please either replace h with a continuous probability model (e.g., a logistic or probit function of ¯y) or explicitly state and defend the d
  2. [Case Study, outcome definition] The text defines Y^a as hypertension (SBP ≥ 140), but h(b,a,m;λ) = I(¯y < 140) indicates normotension (SBP < 140). With this definition, a positive ψ = µ_1 - µ_0 would mean amlodipine increases the chance of normotension, which is protective; the paper interprets the positive bounds as a 'substantial protective effect' without clarifying this sign. The definition of Y or the indicator in h needs to be made consistent so that the direction of the effect matches the intended interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Case Study, Eq. (3)] The text accompanying Eq. (3) says 'h is a function for systolic blood pressure at 24 hours' but h is defined as an indicator of normotension. The wording should be adjusted to avoid confusion.
  2. [Introduction / Notation] There is a typo 'the the' in the first paragraph of the Introduction and 'does' in the case study should likely be 'dose'. Please proofread.
  3. [Mathematical Models, vacuous definition] The definition of vacuous requires {g(a;θ):θ∈Θ}=[0,1] and {h(a,m;λ):λ∈Λ}=[0,1] for all a,m. In the case study, the claim that this holds is false for the chosen h; this is related to the first major comment, but the framework section itself is clear.
  4. [Model Evaluation] The discussion of the g-null paradox (Section: Implications after Mathematical Models) is brief; consider adding a formal definition or a citation to the original g-null paradox literature for readers unfamiliar with it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the bounds are transparent conditional consequences of the model-capture assumption, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation (Eq. 2 → Ψ* = [min ψ̄, max ψ̄]) is a direct logical consequence of the model-capture assumption: if the true conditional probabilities lie in the chosen function images over Θ* × Λ*, then the ACE, being a fixed functional of those probabilities, lies in the image of ψ̄ over that product set. This is an explicit conditional statement, not a hidden assumption of the conclusion; the paper labels vacuous models as providing no information beyond the parameter space and its model-evaluation section candidly lists threats to the assumption (e.g., body-weight mismatch between South Korean PK data and US NHANES, sampling uncertainty in f, and the choices λ0=0 and λ3=0). The self-citations (refs 21, 46, 50, 63, 67, 68) appear in background or extension contexts and are not load-bearing for the framework. One non-circular concern: the case study's claim that the image of h is [0,1] is questionable because h is an indicator function, so model-capture would require degenerate 0/1 probabilities; this is a correctness/external-validity issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's mathematical content is a definitional min/max over assumed parameter sets. The real inputs are: (i) the standard causal-inference assumption toolkit (consistency, no interference, exchangeability/positivity, correct model specification), and (ii) the paper's new model-capture assumption plus hand-set parameter intervals in the case study. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • θ1 interval (fraction of active amlodipine at 24h) = [0.25, 0.40]
    Hand-set from Figure 1 of Kim et al. (2013), a pharmacokinetic study in healthy male Korean volunteers; directly determines the treatment-arm concentration and hence the upper bound of the effect.
  • λ1 interval (max blood-pressure response, mmHg) = [16.3, 36.3]
    From Park et al. (2019), pharmacodynamic results in individuals with SBP<150; sets the magnitude of the Hill-equation reduction that drives the protective-effect bound.
  • λ2 interval (effective concentration at 50% max response) = [0.1, 13.0]
    From Heo et al. (2016); with λ1 it controls how quickly the response saturates, directly shaping the computed bounds.
  • λ0 (constant change in baseline SBP) = 0
    Modeler choice; the paper itself notes this forces ¯µ0 = 0, so the entire risk difference comes from the treatment arm.
  • λ3 (non-concentration effect of amlodipine) = 0
    Modeler assumption that amlodipine acts only through effective concentration; the paper acknowledges side-effects (nausea, fatigue, dizziness) make this suspect.
  • θ0 (dose, mg) = 10 when A=1, 0 when A=0
    Assumed exactly-as-prescribed dose; the paper notes manufacturing uncertainty or non-compliance could be incorporated by specifying a range instead.
  • f(b) baseline-SBP density = empirical NHANES 2017-2018 distribution
    Data input; sampling uncertainty from NHANES being a sample is not propagated into the bounds (acknowledged in Model Evaluation).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Causal consistency: Y_i^{A_i} = Y_i
    Used in the statistical identification review to re-express potential outcomes in observed-data terms; standard but unverifiable. (Statistical Models section)
  • domain assumption No interference between units for tetanus
    Justified by tetanus not being human-to-human transmissible; required for the potential-outcome definition of the ACE. (Interest Parameter section)
  • domain assumption Model-capture assumption (2): θ* ∈ Θ*, λ* ∈ Λ*
    The load-bearing premise of the mathematical-model partial-identification result; the analog of no-unmeasured-confounding/correct-model-specification, but not guaranteed by design. (Mathematical Models, Eq. 2)
  • standard math Surjectivity of g and h onto [0,1] (vacuousness condition)
    A functional-analytic condition on the chosen model functions; used to separate structural assumptions from parameter choices. (Mathematical Models section)
  • domain assumption No uncontrolled confounding given W + positivity
    Standard identification assumptions for the g-formula in the statistical review; not new to the paper.
  • domain assumption Correct statistical model specification m(A,W;γ)
    Required for the parametric g-formula estimator; the paper cites this as the estimation gap (refs 35, 47, 48).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unifying Statistical and Mathematical Modeling Through a Causal Inference Lens." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C22GR3PU

@misc{pith2026251101960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unifying Statistical and Mathematical Modeling Through a Causal Inference Lens},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C22GR3PU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.01960}
}
read the original 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 with 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Causal evidence in health decision making: Methodological approaches of causal inference and health decision science,

    F. K¨ uhne, M. Schomaker, I. Stojkov, B. Jahn, A. Conrads-Frank, S. Siebert, G. Sroczynski, S. Puntscher, D. Schmid, P. Schnell-Inderst, and U. Siebert, “Causal evidence in health decision making: Methodological approaches of causal inference and health decision science,”German medical science: GMS e-journal, vol. 20, p. Doc12, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Theoretical Analysis of a Simple Pendulum Experiment,

    D. G. Tolasa, “Theoretical Analysis of a Simple Pendulum Experiment,”International Journal of Current Research in Science, Engineering & Technology, vol. 8, pp. 214–218, Apr. 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Comparison between a phenomenological approach and a morphoelasticity approach regarding the displacement of extracellular matrix,

    Q. Peng, W. S. Gorter, and F. J. Vermolen, “Comparison between a phenomenological approach and a morphoelasticity approach regarding the displacement of extracellular matrix,”Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 919–935, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Commentary: Integrating Complex Systems Thinking into Epidemiologic Research,

    A. I. Naimi, “Commentary: Integrating Complex Systems Thinking into Epidemiologic Research,”Epidemiology, vol. 27, pp. 843–847, Nov. 2016

    2016

  5. [5]

    Making sense of non-factual disagreement in science,

    N. Weinberger and S. Bradley, “Making sense of non-factual disagreement in science,”Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, vol. 83, pp. 36–43, Oct. 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Stem cells and systems models: Clashing views of explanation,

    M. B. Fagan, “Stem cells and systems models: Clashing views of explanation,”Synthese, vol. 193, pp. 873–907, Mar. 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    An introduction to g methods,

    A. I. Naimi, S. R. Cole, and E. H. Kennedy, “An introduction to g methods,”International journal of epidemiology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 756–762, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect,

    J. Robins, “A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect,”Mathematical modelling, vol. 7, no. 9-12, pp. 1393–1512, 1986

    1986

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Modeling infectious epidemics,

    O. N. Bjørnstad, K. Shea, M. Krzywinski, and N. Altman, “Modeling infectious epidemics,”Nature Methods, vol. 17, pp. 455–456, May 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    The SEIRS model for infectious disease dynamics,

    O. N. Bjørnstad, K. Shea, M. Krzywinski, and N. Altman, “The SEIRS model for infectious disease dynamics,”Nature Methods, vol. 17, pp. 557–558, June 2020. 8

    2020

  3. [11]

    Microsimulation modeling for health decision sciences using R: A tutorial,

    E. M. Krijkamp, F. Alarid-Escudero, E. A. Enns, H. J. Jalal, M. M. Hunink, and P. Pechlivanoglou, “Microsimulation modeling for health decision sciences using R: A tutorial,”Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, vol. 38,...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Microsimulation Modeling in Oncology,

    C ¸ . C ¸ a˘ glayan, H. Terawaki, Q. Chen, A. Rai, T. Ayer, and C. R. Flowers, “Microsimulation Modeling in Oncology,”JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, vol. 2, p. CCI.17.00029, Mar. 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Social network analysis and agent-based modeling in social epidemiology,

    A. M. El-Sayed, P. Scarborough, L. Seemann, and S. Galea, “Social network analysis and agent-based modeling in social epidemiology,”Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, vol. 9, p. 1, Feb. 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    A Comparison of Agent-Based Models and the Parametric G-Formula for Causal Inference,

    E. J. Murray, J. M. Robins, G. R. Seage, K. A. Freedberg, and M. A. Hernan, “A Comparison of Agent-Based Models and the Parametric G-Formula for Causal Inference,”Am J Epidemiol, vol. 186, pp. 131–142, July 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Invited Commentary: Causal Inference Across Space and Time-Quixotic Quest, Worthy Goal, or Both?,

    J. K. Edwards, C. R. Lesko, and A. P. Keil, “Invited Commentary: Causal Inference Across Space and Time-Quixotic Quest, Worthy Goal, or Both?,”American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 186, pp. 143–145, July 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Invited Commentary: Agent-Based Models-Bias in the Face of Discovery,

    K. M. Keyes, M. Tracy, S. J. Mooney, A. Shev, and M. Cerd´ a, “Invited Commentary: Agent-Based Models-Bias in the Face of Discovery,”American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 186, pp. 146–148, July 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    G-Computation and Agent-Based Modeling for Social Epidemiology: Can Population Interventions Prevent Posttraumatic Stress Disorder?,

    S. J. Mooney, A. B. Shev, K. M. Keyes, M. Tracy, and M. Cerd´ a, “G-Computation and Agent-Based Modeling for Social Epidemiology: Can Population Interventions Prevent Posttraumatic Stress Disorder?,”American Journal of Epidemiol- ogy, vol. 191, pp. 188–197, Jan. 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    DAG-informed regression modelling, agent-based modelling and microsimulation modelling: A critical comparison of methods for causal inference,

    K. F. Arnold, W. J. Harrison, A. J. Heppenstall, and M. S. Gilthorpe, “DAG-informed regression modelling, agent-based modelling and microsimulation modelling: A critical comparison of methods for causal inference,”Int J Epidemiol, Dec. 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Dynamical Modeling as a Tool for Inferring Causation,

    S. F. Ackley, J. Lessler, and M. M. Glymour, “Dynamical Modeling as a Tool for Inferring Causation,”American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 191, pp. 1–6, Jan. 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Formalizing the Role of Agent-Based Modeling in Causal Inference and Epidemiology,

    B. D. L. Marshall and S. Galea, “Formalizing the Role of Agent-Based Modeling in Causal Inference and Epidemiology,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 181, pp. 92–99, Jan. 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Synthesis estimators for transportability with positivity violations by a continuous covariate,

    P. N. Zivich, J. K. Edwards, B. E. Shook-Sa, E. T. Lofgren, J. Lessler, and S. R. Cole, “Synthesis estimators for transportability with positivity violations by a continuous covariate,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, vol. 188, pp. 158–...

    2025

  14. [22]

    From Ordinary Differential Equations to Structural Causal Models: The deterministic case,

    J. M. Mooij, D. Janzing, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, “From Ordinary Differential Equations to Structural Causal Models: The deterministic case,” Apr. 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Can we believe the DAGs? A comment on the relationship between causal DAGs and mechanisms,

    OO. Aalen, K. Røysland, JM. Gran, R. Kouyos, and T. Lange, “Can we believe the DAGs? A comment on the relationship between causal DAGs and mechanisms,”Statistical Methods in Medical Research, vol. 25, pp. 2294–2314, Oct. 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Products of Compartmental Models in Epidemiology,

    L. Worden and T. C. Porco, “Products of Compartmental Models in Epidemiology,”Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2017, p. 8613878, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Using compartmental models to simulate directed acyclic graphs to explore competing causal mechanisms underlying epidemiological study data,

    J. Havumaki and M. C. Eisenberg, “Using compartmental models to simulate directed acyclic graphs to explore competing causal mechanisms underlying epidemiological study data,”Journal of The Royal Society Interface, vol. 17, p. 20190675, June 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Causal Inference About the Effects of Interventions From Observational Studies in Medical Journals,

    I. J. Dahabreh and K. Bibbins-Domingo, “Causal Inference About the Effects of Interventions From Observational Studies in Medical Journals,”JAMA, vol. 331, pp. 1845–1853, June 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Causal Inference in the Social Sciences,

    G. W. Imbens, “Causal Inference in the Social Sciences,”Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, vol. 11, pp. 123– 152, Apr. 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects,

    C. F. Manski, “Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects,”The American Economic Review, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 319– 323, 1990

    1990

  21. [29]

    A causal roadmap for generating high-quality real-world evidence,

    L. E. Dang, S. Gruber, H. Lee, I. J. Dahabreh, E. A. Stuart, B. D. Williamson, R. Wyss, I. D ´ ıaz, D. Ghosh, E. Kıcıman, D. Alemayehu, K. L. Hoffman, C. Y. Vossen, R. A. Huml, H. Ravn, K. Kvist, R. Pratley, M.-C. Shih, G. Pennello, D. Martin, S. P. Waddy, C. E. Barr, M. Akach...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Toward Causal Inference With Interference,

    M. G. Hudgens and M. E. Halloran, “Toward Causal Inference With Interference,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 103, no. 482, pp. 832–842, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Average treatment effects in the presence of unknown interference,

    F. S¨ avje, P. M. Aronow, and M. G. Hudgens, “Average treatment effects in the presence of unknown interference,”The Annals of Statistics, vol. 49, pp. 673–701, Apr. 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    On the application of probability theory to agricultural experi- ments. Essay on principles. Section 9,

    J. Splawa-Neyman, D. M. Dabrowska, and TP. Speed, “On the application of probability theory to agricultural experi- ments. Essay on principles. Section 9,”Statistical Science, pp. 465–472, 1990

    1990

  25. [33]

    Animal and human tetanus: An overview on transmission, pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and control,

    M. Pal, T. Rebuma, M. Regassa, and F. Tariku, “Animal and human tetanus: An overview on transmission, pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and control,”Journal of Advances in Microbiological Research, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 22–26, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    A. N. Kolmogorov,Foundations of the Theory of Probability. New York: Chelsea Pub. Co., 1950. 9

    1950

  27. [35]

    Nonparametric identification is not enough, but randomized controlled trials are,

    P. M. Aronow, J. M. Robins, T. Saarinen, F. S¨ avje, and J. Sekhon, “Nonparametric identification is not enough, but randomized controlled trials are,”Observational Studies, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–16, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Association, Causation, and Marginal Structural Models,

    J. M. Robins, “Association, Causation, and Marginal Structural Models,”Synthese, vol. 121, no. 1/2, pp. 151–179, 1999

    1999

  29. [37]

    Determining identifiable parameter combinations using subset profiling,

    M. C. Eisenberg and M. A. L. Hayashi, “Determining identifiable parameter combinations using subset profiling,”Math- ematical Biosciences, vol. 256, pp. 116–126, Oct. 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Identifiability of mathematical models in medical biology,

    S. I. Kabanikhin, D. A. Voronov, A. A. Grodz, and O. I. Krivorotko, “Identifiability of mathematical models in medical biology,”Russian Journal of Genetics: Applied Research, vol. 6, pp. 838–844, Dec. 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Sensitivity Analysis and Practical Identifiability of Some Mathematical Models in Biology,

    O. I. Krivorotko, D. V. Andornaya, and S. I. Kabanikhin, “Sensitivity Analysis and Practical Identifiability of Some Mathematical Models in Biology,”Journal of Applied and Industrial Mathematics, vol. 14, pp. 115–130, Jan. 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Practical identifiability of mathematical models of biomedical processes,

    S. Kabanikhin, M. Bektemesov, O. Krivorotko, and Z. Bektemessov, “Practical identifiability of mathematical models of biomedical processes,”Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2092, p. 012014, Dec. 2021

  33. [41]

    Parameter identification in epidemiological models,

    A. Carpio and E. Pierret, “Parameter identification in epidemiological models,”Mathematical Analysis of Infectious Diseases, pp. 103–124, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    The consistency statement in causal inference: A definition or an assumption?,

    S. R. Cole and C. E. Frangakis, “The consistency statement in causal inference: A definition or an assumption?,” Epidemiology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3–5, 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference,

    T. J. VanderWeele, “Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference,”Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), vol. 20, pp. 880–883, Nov. 2009

    2009

  36. [44]

    Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data,

    M. A. Hern´ an and J. M. Robins, “Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data,”Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol. 60, pp. 578–586, July 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    An Introduction to Proximal Causal Inference,

    E. J. T. Tchetgen, A. Ying, Y. Cui, X. Shi, and W. Miao, “An Introduction to Proximal Causal Inference,”Statistical Science, vol. 39, pp. 375–390, Aug. 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    INTRODUC- ING PROXIMAL CAUSAL INFERENCE FOR EPIDEMIOLOGISTS,

    P. N. Zivich, S. R. Cole, J. K. Edwards, G. E. Mulholland, B. E. Shook-Sa, and E. J. Tchetgen Tchetgen, “INTRODUC- ING PROXIMAL CAUSAL INFERENCE FOR EPIDEMIOLOGISTS,”American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 192, pp. 1224–1227, July 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    On model selection and model misspecification in causal inference,

    S. Vansteelandt, M. Bekaert, and G. Claeskens, “On model selection and model misspecification in causal inference,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, vol. 21, pp. 7–30, Feb. 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    What can be estimated? Identifiability, estimability, causal inference and ill-posed inverse problems,

    O. J. Maclaren and R. Nicholson, “What can be estimated? Identifiability, estimability, causal inference and ill-posed inverse problems,”arXiv:1904.02826 [cs, math, stat], July 2020

    1904 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models,

    H. Bang and J. M. Robins, “Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models,”Biometrics, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 962–973, 2005

    2005

  42. [50]

    Machine Learning and Causal Inference,

    P. N. Zivich, A. Breskin, and E. H. Kennedy, “Machine Learning and Causal Inference,” inWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, pp. 1–8, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Revisiting the g-null paradox,

    S. McGrath, J. G. Young, and M. A. Hern´ an, “Revisiting the g-null paradox,”Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), vol. 33, pp. 114–120, Jan. 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Modeling of Human Viruses on Hands and Risk of Infection in an Office Workplace Using Micro-Activity Data,

    P. I. Beamer, K. R. Plotkin, C. P. Gerba, L. Y. Sifuentes, D. W. Koenig, and K. A. Reynolds, “Modeling of Human Viruses on Hands and Risk of Infection in an Office Workplace Using Micro-Activity Data,”Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, vol. 12, pp. 266–275, Apr. 2015

    2015

  45. [53]

    Re: Integrating Complex Systems Thinking into Epidemiologic Research,

    E. T. Lofgren, B. D. Marshall, and S. Galea, “Re: Integrating Complex Systems Thinking into Epidemiologic Research,” Epidemiology, vol. 28, no. 5, p. e50, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    NHANES Questionnaires, Datasets, and Related Documentation

    “NHANES Questionnaires, Datasets, and Related Documentation.” https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx?BeginYear=2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Y. Kim, M. Son, D. Lee, H. Roh, H. Son, D. Chae, M. Y. Bahng, and K. Park, “Pharmacokinetic Comparison of 2 Fixed- Dose Combination Tablets of Amlodipine and Valsartan in Healthy Male Korean Volunteers: A Randomized, Open-Label, 2-Period, Single-Dose, Crossover Study,”Clinical...

    2013

  48. [56]

    Quantitative model for the blood pressure-lowering interaction of valsartan and amlodipine,

    Y.-A. Heo, N. Holford, Y. Kim, M. Son, and K. Park, “Quantitative model for the blood pressure-lowering interaction of valsartan and amlodipine,”British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 1557–1567, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Pharmacokinetic and haemodynamic interactions between amlodipine and losartan in human beings,

    J.-W. Park, K.-A. Kim, Y. Il Kim, and J.-Y. Park, “Pharmacokinetic and haemodynamic interactions between amlodipine and losartan in human beings,”Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 345–352, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Transportability of Trial Results Using Inverse Odds of Sampling Weights,

    D. Westreich, J. K. Edwards, C. R. Lesko, E. Stuart, and S. R. Cole, “Transportability of Trial Results Using Inverse Odds of Sampling Weights,”American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 186, pp. 1010–1014, Oct. 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise,

    S. Rahmstorf, “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise,”Science, vol. 315, pp. 368–370, Jan. 2007

    2007

  52. [60]

    Semi-Empirical Modelling of SLD Physics,

    W. Wright and M. Potapczuk, “Semi-Empirical Modelling of SLD Physics,” in42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 10

  53. [61]

    Efficiency maximization of fixed-bed adsorption by applying hybrid statistical-phenomenological modeling,

    M. G. Sausen, F. B. Scheufele, H. J. Alves, M. G. A. Vieira, M. G. C. da Silva, F. H. Borba, and C. E. Borba, “Efficiency maximization of fixed-bed adsorption by applying hybrid statistical-phenomenological modeling,”Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 207, pp. 477–48...

    2018

  54. [62]

    Hybrid Phenomenological and Mathematical- Based Modeling Approach for Diesel Emission Prediction,

    R. Rezaei, C. Hayduk, E. Alkan, T. Kemski, T. Delebinski, and C. Bertram, “Hybrid Phenomenological and Mathematical- Based Modeling Approach for Diesel Emission Prediction,” inSAE Technical Paper, no. 2020-01-0660, Apr. 2020

    2020

  55. [63]

    Transportability without positivity: A synthesis of statistical and simulation modeling,

    P. N. Zivich, J. K. Edwards, E. T. Lofgren, S. R. Cole, B. E. Shook-Sa, and J. Lessler, “Transportability without positivity: A synthesis of statistical and simulation modeling,”Epidemiology, vol. 35, pp. 23–31, Jan. 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    The Role of the Natural Course in Causal Analysis,

    J. E. Rudolph, A. Cartus, L. M. Bodnar, E. F. Schisterman, and A. I. Naimi, “The Role of the Natural Course in Causal Analysis,”American Journal of Epidemiology, p. kwab248, Oct. 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    Toward Causally Interpretable Meta-analysis: Transporting Inferences from Multiple Randomized Trials to a New Target Population,

    I. J. Dahabreh, L. C. Petito, S. E. Robertson, M. A. Hern´ an, and J. A. Steingrimsson, “Toward Causally Interpretable Meta-analysis: Transporting Inferences from Multiple Randomized Trials to a New Target Population,”Epidemiology, vol. 31, pp. 334–344, May 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    The parametric G-formula for time-to-event data: Towards intuition with a worked example,

    A. P. Keil, J. K. Edwards, D. R. Richardson, A. I. Naimi, and S. R. Cole, “The parametric G-formula for time-to-event data: Towards intuition with a worked example,”Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 889–897, 2014

    2014

  59. [67]

    Bridged treatment comparisons: An illustrative application in HIV treatment,

    P. N. Zivich, S. R. Cole, J. K. Edwards, B. E. Shook-Sa, A. Breskin, and M. G. Hudgens, “Bridged treatment comparisons: An illustrative application in HIV treatment,”American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 194, pp. 1687–1694, June 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

    Fusing trial data for treatment comparisons: Single vs multi-span bridging,

    B. E. Shook-Sa, P. N. Zivich, S. P. Rosin, J. K. Edwards, A. A. Adimora, M. G. Hudgens, and S. R. Cole, “Fusing trial data for treatment comparisons: Single vs multi-span bridging,”Statistics in Medicine, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 793–815, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Calibrating Agent-Based Models Using Uncertainty Quantification Methods,

    J. McCulloch, J. Ge, J. A. Ward, A. Heppenstall, J. G. Polhill, and N. Malleson, “Calibrating Agent-Based Models Using Uncertainty Quantification Methods,”Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 1, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Improving policy-oriented agent-based modeling with history matching: A case study,

    D. O’Gara, C. C. Kerr, D. J. Klein, M. Binois, R. Garnett, and R. A. Hammond, “Improving policy-oriented agent-based modeling with history matching: A case study,”Epidemics, vol. 52, p. 100845, Sept. 2025. 11

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.