pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08475 · v1 · pith:33S3WWDQnew · submitted 2026-06-07 · 🧬 q-bio.QM · stat.ME

Parameter uncertainty in dynamical models: a practical identifiability index

Hamed Karami , Alexandra Smirnova , Sunmi Lee , Gerardo Chowell This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 17:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.QM stat.ME
keywords practical identifiabilityparameter estimationODE modelsbootstrap confidence intervalsdynamical systemsepidemic modelinguncertainty quantificationgrowth models
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Practical Identifiability Index measures how tightly each positive parameter in an ODE model is constrained by finite noisy data via the logarithmic width of its bootstrap confidence interval.

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

The paper introduces the Practical Identifiability Index (PII) to quantify marginal uncertainty in positive-valued parameters of ordinary differential equation models. The index converts the span of parametric bootstrap confidence intervals into an order-of-magnitude value that can be compared directly across parameters, models, noise levels, and observation designs. Experiments on growth curves and compartmental epidemic models show that the index falls when calibration windows lengthen or become more informative and rises when noise increases or parameters interact strongly. Parameters tied to early observable dynamics tighten faster than those governing latent processes. The PII is offered as a simple complementary diagnostic rather than a replacement for structural identifiability checks or profile likelihood analysis.

Core claim

The Practical Identifiability Index is the base-ten logarithm of the ratio of the upper to lower endpoint of a parametric bootstrap confidence interval for a positive parameter. This single number reports the number of orders of magnitude over which the parameter remains uncertain given the available observations, thereby supplying a reportable, comparable summary of practical identifiability that shrinks with richer data and grows with observation noise and parameter coupling.

What carries the argument

The Practical Identifiability Index (PII), defined as the logarithmic span of parametric bootstrap confidence intervals for each positive-valued parameter.

If this is right

  • Parameters that govern early observable dynamics reach low PII values sooner than those controlling latent progression or recovery.
  • Adding observables that directly inform latent states lowers the PII for the corresponding progression and recovery parameters.
  • Higher observation noise systematically raises PII values across all parameters.
  • Stronger coupling between parameters produces higher individual PII values even when marginal intervals are examined separately.
  • The index permits direct numerical ranking of parameters by practical identifiability within any given model and data set.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The PII could be recomputed from profile-likelihood or posterior intervals to check whether the ordering of parameters by uncertainty stays consistent across different uncertainty representations.
  • In model-reduction workflows, parameters whose PII remains above a chosen threshold after all available data are used might be fixed to nominal values without large loss of predictive fidelity.
  • Experimental designs that minimize the maximum PII across key parameters could be searched systematically before data collection begins.
  • For models with dozens of parameters, the PII might serve as an inexpensive pre-screen before running full structural identifiability algorithms.

Load-bearing premise

Parametric bootstrap confidence intervals give a reliable marginal picture of each parameter's uncertainty for the tested growth and compartmental models.

What would settle it

If the widths of bootstrap confidence intervals computed from repeated independent resamples of the same data set fluctuate by more than one order of magnitude across different random seeds, the PII would lose its claimed stability as a summary metric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08475 by Alexandra Smirnova, Gerardo Chowell, Hamed Karami, Sunmi Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagrams of the three growth models. Circles represent the cumulative case count [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Compartmental diagram of the SIR model. Solid arrows indicate transitions between compart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Compartmental diagram of the SEIR model. The exposed compartment captures the incubation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SEIR model with unreported infections. Only a fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SEIR model with asymptomatic transmission. Exposed individuals progress to either symptomatic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SEIRD model with disease-induced mortality. Infected individuals either recover or die; new deaths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Practical Identifiability Index (PII) for the exponential growth rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parameter estimates and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for the exponential growth rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Practical Identifiability Index (PII) for the transmission rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Parameter estimates and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for the transmission rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Parameter estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the transmission rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SEIR multi-observable trajectories for calibration windows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cross-model distribution of final-window PII values. Points show median PII for each model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ordinary differential equation models are widely used to understand and forecast complex dynamical systems, but their predictive value depends on reliable parameter estimation. Structural identifiability assesses whether parameters can be uniquely recovered from ideal observations, whereas practical identifiability depends on finite, noisy and partially observed data. We introduce the Practical Identifiability Index (PII), a marginal uncertainty-width metric based on the logarithmic span of confidence intervals. Expressed on an order-of-magnitude scale, the PII summarises how tightly individual positive-valued parameters are constrained by available observations, enabling comparison across parameters, models, error structures and observation designs. The PII is intended as a complementary diagnostic, not a standalone identifiability test, and should be interpreted alongside coverage, profile likelihoods, posterior summaries, sensitivity analysis or structural identifiability results. Using parametric bootstrap experiments across growth and compartmental epidemic models, we identify consistent principles: uncertainty decreases as calibration windows become more informative, increases with observation noise and parameter coupling, and remains high for latent or indirectly observed processes. Parameters governing early observable dynamics become constrained sooner, while additional observables can improve constraint for latent progression and recovery parameters. The PII provides a simple, reportable summary of marginal parameter uncertainty for dynamical modelling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Practical Identifiability Index (PII), a metric defined as the logarithmic span of parametric-bootstrap confidence intervals for positive-valued parameters in ODE models. It positions PII as a simple, reportable summary of marginal uncertainty that enables comparisons across parameters, models, noise levels, and observation designs, and demonstrates its behavior via bootstrap experiments on growth and compartmental epidemic models, identifying patterns such as reduced uncertainty with more informative calibration windows and higher uncertainty for latent processes.

Significance. If the bootstrap intervals are statistically valid marginal representations, PII would offer a practical, order-of-magnitude scale diagnostic that complements profile likelihood, MCMC, and structural identifiability analyses for dynamical models. The approach is straightforward and directly addresses a common need in applied modeling, but its utility hinges on the reliability of the underlying intervals.

major comments (1)
  1. [bootstrap experiments] The central definition of PII (log-span of parametric bootstrap CIs) is load-bearing on the assumption that these intervals provide reliable marginal uncertainty for nonlinear ODEs. The abstract reports bootstrap experiments on growth and compartmental models but supplies no coverage diagnostics, convergence checks, or comparisons to profile likelihood or MCMC marginals. For models with parameter coupling, latent states, and non-elliptical likelihood surfaces, standard parametric bootstrap can produce intervals whose coverage deviates from nominal levels or whose width is dominated by optimization artifacts; this directly undermines the claim that PII faithfully summarises how tightly observations constrain each parameter.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that PII 'should be interpreted alongside' other diagnostics; this caveat is appropriate but could be strengthened with a brief decision tree or table showing when PII alone is insufficient.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and for identifying a key limitation in the validation of the bootstrap-based PII. We agree that the reliability of the underlying intervals must be demonstrated explicitly and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [bootstrap experiments] The central definition of PII (log-span of parametric bootstrap CIs) is load-bearing on the assumption that these intervals provide reliable marginal uncertainty for nonlinear ODEs. The abstract reports bootstrap experiments on growth and compartmental models but supplies no coverage diagnostics, convergence checks, or comparisons to profile likelihood or MCMC marginals. For models with parameter coupling, latent states, and non-elliptical likelihood surfaces, standard parametric bootstrap can produce intervals whose coverage deviates from nominal levels or whose width is dominated by optimization artifacts; this directly undermines the claim that PII faithfully summarises how tightly observations constrain each parameter.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of coverage diagnostics, convergence checks, and comparisons to profile likelihood or MCMC is a substantive gap. In the revised manuscript we will add (i) simulation-based coverage assessments on the growth and epidemic models where ground-truth parameters are known, (ii) diagnostics for optimizer convergence across bootstrap replicates, and (iii) side-by-side comparisons of bootstrap intervals with profile-likelihood and MCMC marginals on at least two of the example models. These additions will allow readers to evaluate whether the reported PII values reflect genuine marginal uncertainty or optimization artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: PII is a direct post-processing metric on bootstrap CIs with no self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper defines the Practical Identifiability Index explicitly as the logarithmic span of parametric-bootstrap confidence intervals and applies it to summarize results from bootstrap experiments on growth and compartmental models. This construction is a straightforward summary statistic rather than a claimed derivation that reduces by the paper's own equations to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked; the bootstrap supplies the intervals that are then summarized by PII without the metric itself being fitted or redefined in terms of its outputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard statistical concepts (confidence intervals, bootstrap) plus the domain assumption that these intervals meaningfully capture uncertainty in positive ODE parameters; the PII itself is the main invented entity.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Parametric bootstrap yields valid confidence intervals that reflect true marginal uncertainty for the tested models
    Invoked when the abstract states that bootstrap experiments identify consistent principles for PII behavior.
  • domain assumption Parameters of interest are positive-valued
    PII is explicitly defined for positive-valued parameters.
invented entities (1)
  • Practical Identifiability Index (PII) no independent evidence
    purpose: Marginal uncertainty-width metric on logarithmic scale for comparing parameter constraint across models and designs
    Newly defined quantity whose independent evidence is limited to the paper's own bootstrap illustrations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5755 in / 1354 out tokens · 21563 ms · 2026-06-27T17:46:03.840654+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Adaptive COVID-19 Trajectory Forecasting Using MAB-Inspired Ensemble Weighting

    q-bio.QM 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    EXP3-based adaptive ensembles achieved the lowest mean weighted interval scores for COVID-19 incidence forecasts compared with individual models and simple ensemble baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Investigating and forecasting infectious disease dynamics using epidemiological and molecular surveillance data.Physics of Life Reviews, 51:294–327, 2024

    Gerardo Chowell and Pavel Skums. Investigating and forecasting infectious disease dynamics using epidemiological and molecular surveillance data.Physics of Life Reviews, 51:294–327, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Differential equation models for infectious diseases: Mathe- matical modeling, qualitative analysis, numerical methods and applications.SeMA Journal, pages 1–36, 2025

    Manh Tuan Hoang and Matthias Ehrhardt. Differential equation models for infectious diseases: Mathe- matical modeling, qualitative analysis, numerical methods and applications.SeMA Journal, pages 1–36, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Forecasting the spatial spread of an ebola epidemic in real time: Comparing predictions of mathematical models and experts.eLife, 13:RP98005, 2025

    James D Munday, Alicia Rosello, W John Edmunds, and Sebastian Funk. Forecasting the spatial spread of an ebola epidemic in real time: Comparing predictions of mathematical models and experts.eLife, 13:RP98005, 2025. 137

    2025

  4. [4]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2024

    Steven H Strogatz.Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: with applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    SIAM, 2005

    Leah Edelstein-Keshet.Mathematical models in biology. SIAM, 2005

    2005

  6. [6]

    Springer, 2019

    Fred Brauer, Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Zhilan Feng, et al.Mathematical models in epidemiology, vol- ume 32. Springer, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Infectious disease modeling.Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 12(1):19–44, 2025

    Jing Huang and Jeffrey S Morris. Infectious disease modeling.Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 12(1):19–44, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Structural and practical identifiability of phenomenological growth models for epidemic forecasting.Viruses, 17(4):496, 2025

    Yuganthi R Liyanage, Gerardo Chowell, Gleb Pogudin, and Necibe Tuncer. Structural and practical identifiability of phenomenological growth models for epidemic forecasting.Viruses, 17(4):496, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Oxford University Press, 2001

    Yudi Pawitan.In all likelihood: statistical modelling and inference using likelihood. Oxford University Press, 2001

    2001

  10. [10]

    Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models.PLoS computa- tional biology, 3(10):e189, 2007

    Ryan N Gutenkunst, Joshua J Waterfall, Fergal P Casey, Kevin S Brown, Christopher R Myers, and James P Sethna. Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models.PLoS computa- tional biology, 3(10):e189, 2007

    2007

  11. [11]

    Structural and practical identifiability analysis of partially observed dynamical models by exploiting the profile likelihood.Bioinformatics, 25(15):1923–1929, 2009

    Andreas Raue, Clemens Kreutz, Thomas Maiwald, Julie Bachmann, Marcel Schilling, Ursula Klingm¨ uller, and Jens Timmer. Structural and practical identifiability analysis of partially observed dynamical models by exploiting the profile likelihood.Bioinformatics, 25(15):1923–1929, 2009

    1923

  12. [12]

    Structural identifiability of com- partmental models for infectious disease transmission is influenced by data type.Epidemics, 41:100643, 2022

    Emmanuelle A Dankwa, Andrew F Brouwer, and Christl A Donnelly. Structural identifiability of com- partmental models for infectious disease transmission is influenced by data type.Epidemics, 41:100643, 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    Kimberlyn Roosa and Gerardo Chowell. Assessing parameter identifiability in compartmental dynamic models using a computational approach: application to infectious disease transmission models.Theo- retical Biology and Medical Modelling, 16(1):1, 2019

    2019

  14. [14]

    Dynamical compensation and structural identifiability of bio- logical models: Analysis, implications, and reconciliation.PLoS computational biology, 13(11):e1005878, 2017

    Alejandro F Villaverde and Julio R Banga. Dynamical compensation and structural identifiability of bio- logical models: Analysis, implications, and reconciliation.PLoS computational biology, 13(11):e1005878, 2017

    2017

  15. [15]

    Identifiability and estimation of multiple transmission pathways in cholera and waterborne disease.Journal of theoretical biology, 324:84–102, 2013

    Marisa C Eisenberg, Suzanne L Robertson, and Joseph H Tien. Identifiability and estimation of multiple transmission pathways in cholera and waterborne disease.Journal of theoretical biology, 324:84–102, 2013

    2013

  16. [16]

    Quantifying and managing uncertainty in systems biology: Mechanistic and data-driven models

    Eva Balsa-Canto, N´ uria Campo-Manzanares, Artai R Moimenta, Geoffrey Roudaut, Diego Troitin, et al. Quantifying and managing uncertainty in systems biology: Mechanistic and data-driven models. Current Opinion in Systems Biology, page 100557, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Identifiability of large nonlinear biochemical networks

    Alejandro F Villaverde and Antonio Barreiro. Identifiability of large nonlinear biochemical networks. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem, 76(2):259–296, 2016

    2016

  18. [18]

    On structural identifiability.Mathematical biosciences, 7(3- 4):329–339, 1970

    Ror Bellman and Karl Johan ˚Astr¨ om. On structural identifiability.Mathematical biosciences, 7(3- 4):329–339, 1970

    1970

  19. [19]

    Claudio Cobelli and Joseph J Distefano 3rd. Parameter and structural identifiability concepts and ambiguities: a critical review and analysis.American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 239(1):R7–R24, 1980

    1980

  20. [20]

    Differential elimination for dynamical models via projections with applications to structural identifiability.SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry, 7(1):194–235, 2023

    Ruiwen Dong, Christian Goodbrake, Heather A Harrington, and Gleb Pogudin. Differential elimination for dynamical models via projections with applications to structural identifiability.SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry, 7(1):194–235, 2023. 138

    2023

  21. [21]

    Springer, 1997

    Eric Walter and Luc Pronzato.Identification of Parametric Models from Experimental Data. Springer, 1997

    1997

  22. [22]

    On global identifiability for arbitrary model parametrizations.Auto- matica, 30(2):265–276, 1994

    Lennart Ljung and Torkel Glad. On global identifiability for arbitrary model parametrizations.Auto- matica, 30(2):265–276, 1994

    1994

  23. [23]

    Parameter identifiability of nonlinear systems: the role of initial conditions.Automatica, 39(4):619–632, 2003

    Maria Pia Saccomani, Stefania Audoly, and Leontina D’Angi` o. Parameter identifiability of nonlinear systems: the role of initial conditions.Automatica, 39(4):619–632, 2003

    2003

  24. [24]

    Structural identifiability of systems biology models: a critical comparison of methods.PLOS ONE, 6(11):e27755, 2011

    Oana-Teodora Chis, Julio R Banga, and Eva Balsa-Canto. Structural identifiability of systems biology models: a critical comparison of methods.PLOS ONE, 6(11):e27755, 2011

    2011

  25. [25]

    Structural and practical identifiability analysis of outbreak models

    Necibe Tuncer and Trang T Le. Structural and practical identifiability analysis of outbreak models. Mathematical biosciences, 299:1–18, 2018

    2018

  26. [26]

    On identifiability of nonlinear ode models and applications in viral dynamics.SIAM review, 53(1):3–39, 2011

    Hongyu Miao, Xiaohua Xia, Alan S Perelson, and Hulin Wu. On identifiability of nonlinear ode models and applications in viral dynamics.SIAM review, 53(1):3–39, 2011

    2011

  27. [27]

    Benchmarking tools for a priori identifiability analysis

    Xabier Rey Barreiro and Alejandro F Villaverde. Benchmarking tools for a priori identifiability analysis. Bioinformatics, 39(2):btad065, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    Strike-goldd 4.0: user-friendly, efficient analysis of structural identifiability and observability.Bioinformatics, 39(1):btac748, 2023

    Sandra D´ ıaz-Seoane, Xabier Rey Barreiro, and Alejandro F Villaverde. Strike-goldd 4.0: user-friendly, efficient analysis of structural identifiability and observability.Bioinformatics, 39(1):btac748, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    On structural and practical identifiability: Current status and update of results.Current Opinion in Systems Biology, 41:100546, 2025

    Mio Heinrich, Marcus Rosenblatt, Franz-Georg Wieland, Hans Stigter, and Jens Timmer. On structural and practical identifiability: Current status and update of results.Current Opinion in Systems Biology, 41:100546, 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    Practical parameter identifiability for spatio-temporal models of cell invasion.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 17(164), 2020

    Matthew J Simpson, Ruth E Baker, Sean T Vittadello, and Oliver J Maclaren. Practical parameter identifiability for spatio-temporal models of cell invasion.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 17(164), 2020

    2020

  31. [31]

    Minimally sufficient experimental design using identifiability analysis

    Jana L Gevertz and Irina Kareva. Minimally sufficient experimental design using identifiability analysis. npj Systems Biology and Applications, 10(1):2, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Lack of practical identifiability may hamper reliable predictions in covid-19 epidemic models.Science advances, 8(3):eabg5234, 2022

    Luca Gallo, Mattia Frasca, Vito Latora, and Giovanni Russo. Lack of practical identifiability may hamper reliable predictions in covid-19 epidemic models.Science advances, 8(3):eabg5234, 2022

    2022

  33. [33]

    Inference-based assessment of parameter identifiability in nonlinear biological models.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 15(144), 2018

    Aidan C Daly, David Gavaghan, Jonathan Cooper, and Simon Tavener. Inference-based assessment of parameter identifiability in nonlinear biological models.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 15(144), 2018

    2018

  34. [34]

    Perspective: Sloppiness and emergent theories in physics, biology, and beyond.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 143(1), 2015

    Mark K Transtrum, Benjamin B Machta, Kevin S Brown, Bryan C Daniels, Christopher R Myers, and James P Sethna. Perspective: Sloppiness and emergent theories in physics, biology, and beyond.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 143(1), 2015

    2015

  35. [35]

    On the different flavours of practical identifiability

    Mio Heinrich, Rafael Arutjunjan, and Jens Timmer. On the different flavours of practical identifiability. Current Opinion in Systems Biology, page 100556, 2025

    2025

  36. [36]

    A systematic computational framework for practical identifiability analysis in mathematical models arising from biology.Advanced Science, 12(35):e04346, 2025

    Shun Wang and Wenrui Hao. A systematic computational framework for practical identifiability analysis in mathematical models arising from biology.Advanced Science, 12(35):e04346, 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    Structural and practical identifiability of within- host models of virus dynamics–a review.Current Opinion in Systems Biology, page 100552, 2025

    Necibe Tuncer, Maia Martcheva, and Stanca M Ciupe. Structural and practical identifiability of within- host models of virus dynamics–a review.Current Opinion in Systems Biology, page 100552, 2025

    2025

  38. [38]

    Think before you fit: parameter identifiability, sensitivity and uncertainty in systems biology models

    Simon P Preston, Richard D Wilkinson, Richard H Clayton, Mike J Chappell, and Gary R Mirams. Think before you fit: parameter identifiability, sensitivity and uncertainty in systems biology models. Current Opinion in Systems Biology, page 100563, 2025. 139

    2025

  39. [39]

    Practical parameter identifiability and handling of censored data with bayesian inference in mathematical tumour models.npj Systems Biology and Applications, 10(1):89, 2024

    Jamie Porthiyas, Daniel Nussey, Catherine AA Beauchemin, Donald C Warren, Christian Quirouette, and Kathleen P Wilkie. Practical parameter identifiability and handling of censored data with bayesian inference in mathematical tumour models.npj Systems Biology and Applications, 10(1):89, 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Parameter identifiability and model selection for partial differential equation models of cell invasion.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 21(212), 2024

    Yue Liu, Kevin Suh, Philip K Maini, Daniel J Cohen, and Ruth E Baker. Parameter identifiability and model selection for partial differential equation models of cell invasion.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 21(212), 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    Ryan J Murphy, Oliver J Maclaren, and Matthew J Simpson. Implementing measurement error models with mechanistic mathematical models in a likelihood-based framework for estimation, identifiability analysis and prediction in the life sciences.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 21(210), 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    A comparative study of simulation-based inference methods for epidemic models with identifiability considerations.PLOS Computational Biology, 22(6):e1014364, 2026

    Geunsoo Jang, K Sel¸ cuk Candan, and Gerardo Chowell. A comparative study of simulation-based inference methods for epidemic models with identifiability considerations.PLOS Computational Biology, 22(6):e1014364, 2026

    2026

  43. [43]

    A method for computing profile-likelihood-based confidence intervals

    DJ Venzon and SH Moolgavkar. A method for computing profile-likelihood-based confidence intervals. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 37(1):87–94, 1988

    1988

  44. [44]

    Andreas Raue, Clemens Kreutz, Fabian Joachim Theis, and Jens Timmer. Joining forces of bayesian and frequentist methodology: a study for inference in the presence of non-identifiability.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1984), 2013

    1984

  45. [45]

    Likelihoodprofiler.jl: Unified profile-likelihood workflows for identifiability and confidence intervals.Journal of Open Source Software, 11(117):9501, 2026

    Ivan Borisov, Aleksander Demin, and Evgeny Metelkin. Likelihoodprofiler.jl: Unified profile-likelihood workflows for identifiability and confidence intervals.Journal of Open Source Software, 11(117):9501, 2026

    2026

  46. [46]

    Systems biology: parameter estimation for biochemical models.The FEBS journal, 276(4):886–902, 2009

    Maksat Ashyraliyev, Yves Fomekong-Nanfack, Jaap A Kaandorp, and Joke G Blom. Systems biology: parameter estimation for biochemical models.The FEBS journal, 276(4):886–902, 2009

    2009

  47. [47]

    Likelihood based observability analysis and confi- dence intervals for predictions of dynamic models.BMC Systems Biology, 6(1):120, 2012

    Clemens Kreutz, Andreas Raue, and Jens Timmer. Likelihood based observability analysis and confi- dence intervals for predictions of dynamic models.BMC Systems Biology, 6(1):120, 2012

    2012

  48. [48]

    A cost- effectiveness framework for covid-19 treatments for hospitalized patients in the united states.Advances in therapy, 38(4):1811–1831, 2021

    Daniel Sheinson, Joseph Dang, Anuj Shah, Yang Meng, David Elsea, and Stacey Kowal. A cost- effectiveness framework for covid-19 treatments for hospitalized patients in the united states.Advances in therapy, 38(4):1811–1831, 2021

    2021

  49. [49]

    Sars out- breaks in ontario, hong kong and singapore: the role of diagnosis and isolation as a control mechanism

    Gerardo Chowell, Paul W Fenimore, Melissa A Castillo-Garsow, and Carlos Castillo-Chavez. Sars out- breaks in ontario, hong kong and singapore: the role of diagnosis and isolation as a control mechanism. Journal of theoretical biology, 224(1):1–8, 2003

    2003

  50. [50]

    Inapparent infections and cholera dynamics.Nature, 454(7206):877–880, 2008

    Aaron A King, Edward L Ionides, Mercedes Pascual, and Menno J Bouma. Inapparent infections and cholera dynamics.Nature, 454(7206):877–880, 2008

    2008

  51. [51]

    Why is it difficult to accurately predict the covid-19 epidemic?Infectious disease modelling, 5:271–281, 2020

    Weston C Roda, Marie B Varughese, Donglin Han, and Michael Y Li. Why is it difficult to accurately predict the covid-19 epidemic?Infectious disease modelling, 5:271–281, 2020

    2020

  52. [52]

    A theory of growth.Mathematical Biosciences, 29(3-4):367–373, 1976

    Malcolm E Turner Jr, Edwin L Bradley Jr, Katherine A Kirk, and Kenneth M Pruitt. A theory of growth.Mathematical Biosciences, 29(3-4):367–373, 1976

    1976

  53. [53]

    Characterizing the repro- duction number of epidemics with early subexponential growth dynamics.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 13(123), 2016

    Gerardo Chowell, C´ ecile Viboud, Lone Simonsen, and Seyed M Moghadas. Characterizing the repro- duction number of epidemics with early subexponential growth dynamics.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 13(123), 2016

    2016

  54. [54]

    Observability and structural identifiability of nonlinear biological systems

    Alejandro F Villaverde. Observability and structural identifiability of nonlinear biological systems. Complexity, 2019(1):8497093, 2019

    2019

  55. [55]

    Determining identifiable parameter combinations using subset profiling.Mathematical biosciences, 256:116–126, 2014

    Marisa C Eisenberg and Michael AL Hayashi. Determining identifiable parameter combinations using subset profiling.Mathematical biosciences, 256:116–126, 2014. 140

    2014

  56. [56]

    Michael Binns, Alessandro Usai, and Constantinos Theodoropoulos. Identifiability methods for biologi- cal systems: Determining subsets of parameters through sensitivity analysis, penalty-based optimisation, profile likelihood and lasso model reduction.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 186:108683, 2024

    2024

  57. [57]

    Identifiability and uncertainty for ordinary differential equation models with qualitative or semiquantitative data.Current Opinion in Systems Biology, page 100558, 2025

    Domagoj Doreˇ si´ c, Dilan Pathirana, Daniel Weindl, and Jan Hasenauer. Identifiability and uncertainty for ordinary differential equation models with qualitative or semiquantitative data.Current Opinion in Systems Biology, page 100558, 2025

    2025

  58. [58]

    Identifiability of infection model parameters early in an epidemic.SIAM journal on control and optimization, 60(2):S27–S48, 2021

    Timothy Sauer, Tyrus Berry, Donald Ebeigbe, Michael M Norton, Andrew J Whalen, and Steven J Schiff. Identifiability of infection model parameters early in an epidemic.SIAM journal on control and optimization, 60(2):S27–S48, 2021

    2021

  59. [59]

    On parameter identifiability in network-based epidemic models

    Istvan Z Kiss and Peter L Simon. On parameter identifiability in network-based epidemic models. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 85(3):18, 2023

    2023

  60. [60]

    A generalized-growth model to characterize the early ascending phase of infectious disease outbreaks.Epidemics, 15:27–37, 2016

    C´ ecile Viboud, Lone Simonsen, and Gerardo Chowell. A generalized-growth model to characterize the early ascending phase of infectious disease outbreaks.Epidemics, 15:27–37, 2016

    2016

  61. [61]

    Using phenomenological models to characterize transmissibility and forecast patterns and final burden of zika epidemics.PLoS currents, 8:ecurrents–outbreaks, 2016

    Gerardo Chowell, Doracelly Hincapie-Palacio, Juan Ospina, Bruce Pell, Amna Tariq, Sushma Dahal, Seyed Moghadas, Alexandra Smirnova, Lone Simonsen, and C´ ecile Viboud. Using phenomenological models to characterize transmissibility and forecast patterns and final burden of zika epidemics.PLoS currents, 8:ecurrents–outbreaks, 2016

    2016

  62. [62]

    A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics.Proceedings of the royal society of london

    William Ogilvy Kermack and Anderson G McKendrick. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics.Proceedings of the royal society of london. Series A, Containing papers of a mathematical and physical character, 115(772):700–721, 1927

    1927

  63. [63]

    The mathematics of infectious diseases.SIAM review, 42(4):599–653, 2000

    Herbert W Hethcote. The mathematics of infectious diseases.SIAM review, 42(4):599–653, 2000

    2000

  64. [64]

    Hamed Karami, Ruiyan Luo, Pejman Sanaei, and Gerardo Chowell. Comparative study of bayesian and frequentist methods for epidemic forecasting: Insights from simulated and historical data.Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 35(1):21–39, 2026

    2026

  65. [65]

    Structural identifiability analysis of epidemic models based on differential equations: a tutorial-based primer

    Gerardo Chowell, Sushma Dahal, Yuganthi R Liyanage, Amna Tariq, and Necibe Tuncer. Structural identifiability analysis of epidemic models based on differential equations: a tutorial-based primer. Journal of mathematical biology, 87(6):79, 2023

    2023

  66. [66]

    Gerardo Chowell, Amanda Bleichrodt, and Ruiyan Luo. Parameter estimation and forecasting with quantified uncertainty for ordinary differential equation models using quantdiffforecast: A matlab tool- box and tutorial.Statistics in medicine, 43(9):1826–1848, 2024

    2024

  67. [67]

    Comparative analysis of practical identifiability methods for an seir model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15076, 2024

    Omar Saucedo, Amanda Laubmeier, Tingting Tang, Benjamin Levy, Lale Asik, Tim Pollington, and Olivia Prosper. Comparative analysis of practical identifiability methods for an seir model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15076, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Hamed Karami, Amanda Bleichrodt, Ruiyan Luo, and Gerardo Chowell. Bayesianfitforecast: a user- friendly r toolbox for parameter estimation and forecasting with ordinary differential equations.BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 25(1):1–40, 2025

    2025

  69. [69]

    Springer, 2006

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J Wright.Numerical optimization. Springer, 2006. 141

    2006