Practical parameter identifiability and handling of censored data with Bayesian inference in mathematical tumour models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanistic mathematical models (MMs) are a powerful tool to help us understand and predict the dynamics of tumour growth under various conditions. In this work, we use 5 MMs with an increasing number of parameters to explore how certain (often overlooked) decisions in estimating parameters from data of experimental tumour growth affect the outcome of the analysis. In particular, we propose a framework for including tumour volume measurements that fall outside the upper and lower limits of detection, which are normally discarded. We demonstrate how excluding censored data results in an overestimation of the initial tumour volume and the MM-predicted tumour volumes prior to the first measurements, and an underestimation of the carrying capacity and the MM-predicted tumour volumes beyond the latest measurable time points. We show in which way the choice of prior for the MM parameters can impact the posterior distributions, and illustrate that reporting the most likely parameters and their 95% credible interval can lead to confusing or misleading interpretations. We hope this work will encourage others to carefully consider choices made in parameter estimation and to adopt the approaches we put forward herein.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".