Parameter identifiability of a neuroendocrine-inflammatory model across experimental designs
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.
Related
- Parameter non-identifiability limits ecological inference from historical plague mortality records
- Socio-cognitive models in a patch foraging setting: a case study for model selection and parameter identifiability methods
- Parameter uncertainty in dynamical models: a practical identifiability index
- Socio-cognitive models in a patch foraging setting: a case study for model selection and parameter identifiability methods
- Separating Faces in ARMS Metabarcoding Improves Marine Biodiversity Monitoring: A Comparison Across Protocols, Experimental Designs and Photographic Surveys
BibTeX
@misc{ayres2026parameter,
title = {{Parameter identifiability of a neuroendocrine-inflammatory model across experimental designs}},
author = {Aubrey Ayres and Mitchel J. Colebank},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.30031},
eprint = {2609.30031},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30031},
note = {CC BY-NC-SA 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Parameter identifiability of a neuroendocrine-inflammatory model across experimental designs
AU - Aubrey Ayres
AU - Mitchel J. Colebank
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/24
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.30031
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30031
AB - 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.
ER -