2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.epidem.2018.05.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Practical unidentifiability of a simple vector-borne disease model: Implications for parameter estimation and intervention assessment

Abstract: Mathematical modeling has an extensive history in vector-borne disease epidemiology, and is increasingly used for prediction, intervention design, and understanding mechanisms. Many studies rely on parameter estimation to link models and data, and to tailor predictions and counterfactuals to specific settings. However, few studies have formally evaluated whether vector-borne disease models can properly estimate the parameters of interest given the constraints of a particular dataset. Identifiability analysis a… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
69
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 99 publications
(143 reference statements)
2
69
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is important to remark that we are more interested in their product since the epidemic threshold parameter R 0 is proportional to this product, as we have mentioned before. These results agree with previous results regarding identifiability for epidemic models with vectors [67].…”
Section: Identifiability Of the Parameterssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…However, it is important to remark that we are more interested in their product since the epidemic threshold parameter R 0 is proportional to this product, as we have mentioned before. These results agree with previous results regarding identifiability for epidemic models with vectors [67].…”
Section: Identifiability Of the Parameterssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Some methods, such as Taylor series methods [15, 16] and differential algebra-based methods [17, 18], require more mathematical analyses, which becomes increasingly complicated as model complexity increases. Other methods rely on constructing the profile likelihood for each of the estimated parameters to assess local structural identifiability [11, 14, 31, 32]. In this method, one of the parameters (θ i ) is fixed across a range of realistic values, and the other parameters are refit to the data using the likelihood function of θ i .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, model parameters can be estimated by connecting models with observed data through various methods, including least-squares fitting [9], maximum likelihood estimation [10, 11], and approximate Bayesian computation [12, 13]. An important, yet often overlooked step in estimating parameters is examining parameter identifiability – whether a set of parameters can be uniquely estimated from a given model and data set [14]. Lack of identifiability, or non-identifiability, occurs when multiple sets of parameter values yield a very similar model fit to the data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One advantage of having fewer parameters is that identifying the parameter values and model fitting are less complex. Thus, we can obtained reliable conclusions regarding each parameter value range 55‐59 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 74%