Skip to main content

Identifiability and accuracy: a closer look at contemporary contributions and changes in these vital areas of mathematical modelling

  • Chapter
Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals

Abstract

In the development of mathematical models we are plagued with two key concerns: is the model unique and accurate enough? Under the umbrella of the first question we will show whether the extent of the model structure in our data will shed light on all of the model’s parameters. Identifiability in model advancement helps us with the question ‘will a proposed experiment on a system enable us to determine values for the parameters of a model of that system?’ The model is assumed to be known and to reflect the response of the system to the experiment. Identifiability is not concerned with the precision with which the parameters can be estimated. A comprehensive review and demonstrations of the practical considerations regarding identifiability are presented. We further introduced new concepts which when omitted from consideration in the identifiability process can lead to serious misjudgement about the resolution of important aspect of the model under investigation, and its identifiability classification per se. On the second question we discuss current methods and their pitfalls in evaluating model adequacy. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) has been commonly used to assess agreement of continuous data, such as agreement of a new assay and a gold-standard assay, observed versus model predicted values, different methods, raters, and reproducibility. The main advantage of CCC is that it incorporates precision and accuracy simultaneously. There are four methods to compute CCC; two of them are extremely dependent on normality whereas the other two are more robust to non-normality. Therefore, datasets that departures from normality or are not independent may pose a significant problem when using CCC with the squared distance payoff function. It has been shown that CCC may indicate an increasing agreement as the marginal distribution becomes different, suggesting the agreement should be compared over a similar range.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Atkinson, G. and Nevill, A., 1997. Comment on the use of concordance correlation to assess the agreement between two variables. Biometrics 53:775–777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnhart, H.X., Haber, M. and Song, J., 2002. Overall Concordance Correlation Coefficient for Evaluating Agreement among Multiple Observers. Biometrics 58:1020–1027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barnhart, H.X., Song, J. and Haber, M.J., 2005. Assessing intra, inter and total agreement with replicated readings. Statistics in Medicine 24:1371–1384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barnhart, H.X. and Williamson, J.M., 2001. Modeling concordance correlation via GEE to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 57:931–940.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, M. and Schonfeld, R.L., 1956. Invariants in experimental data on linear kinetics and the formulation of models. Journal of Applied Physics 27:1361–1370.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boston, R.C., Wilkins, P.A., and Tedeschi, L.O., 2007. Identifiability and Accuracy: Two critical problems associated with the application of models in nutrition and the health sciences. In: Hanigan, M. (ed.) Mathematical Modeling for Nutrition and Health Sciences. Roanoke, VA, USA. pp.161–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, J.L. and Jover, L., 2003. Estimating the generalized concordance correlation coefficient through variance components. Biometrics 59:849–858.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, J.L. and Jover, L., 2005. Concordance correlation coefficient applied to discrete data. Statistics in Medicine 24:4021–4034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, J.L., Jover, L., King, T.S. and Chinchilli, V.M., 2007. Comparison of concordance correlation coefficient estimating approaches with skewed data. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 17:673–684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, J.L., King, T.S. and Chinchilli, V.M., 2009. The concordance correlation coefficient for repeated measures estimated by variance components. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 19:90–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chinchilli, V.M., Martel, J.K., Kuminyika, S. and Lloyd, T., 1996. A weighted concordance correlation coefficient for repeated measurement designs. Biometrics 52:341–353.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cobelli, C. and DiStefano, III, J.J., 1980. Parameter and structural identifiability concepts and ambiguities: a critical review and analysis. American Journal of Physiology (Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology) 239:R7–24.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deyo, R.A., Diehr, P. and Patrick, D.L., 1991. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health statis measures. Controlled Clinical Trials 12:142S–158S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freese, F., 1960. Testing accuracy. Forest Science 6:139–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, K., 1983. Compartmental Models and their Application. Academic Press, London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquez, J.A., 1996. Compartmental Analysis in Biology and Medicine (3rd ed.). BioMedware, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, T.S. and Chinchilli, V.M., 2001a. A generalized concordance correlation coefficient for continuous and categorical data. Statistics in Medicine 20:2131–2147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • King, T.S. and Chinchilli, V.M., 2001b. Robust estimator of the concordance correlation coefficient. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 11:83–105.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • King, T.S., Chinchilli, V.M. and Carrasco, J.L., 2007. A repeated measures concordance correlation coefficient. Statistics in Medicine 26:3095–3113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K., 1970. Bivariate agreement coefficients for reliability of data. Sociological Methodology, 2:139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeCourtier, Y. and Walter, E., 1981. Comments on ‘On parameter and structural identifiability: non unique observability/reconstructibility for identifiable systems, other ambiguities and new defnitions’. IEEE Transactions and Automatic Control 26:800–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J.J.Z., 2003. An improved concordance correlation coefficient. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2:253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., Hedayat, A.S. and Wu, W., 2007. A unified approach for assessing agreement for continuous and categorical data. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 17:629–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L.I.-K., 1989. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45:255–268.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L.I.-K., Hedayat, A.S., Sinha, B. and Yang, M., 2002. Statistical methods in assessing agreement: Models, issues, and tools. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97:257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, R. and Büttner, P., 1994. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Statistics in Medicine 13:2465–2476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, C.A.E., 1997. A note on ‘A concordance correlation coeffcient to evaluate reproducibility’. Biometrics 53:1503–1507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanovski, D., Moate, P.J. and Boston, R.C., 2003. WinSAAM: A Windows-based compartmental modeling system. Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental 52:1153–1166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tedeschi, L.O., 2006. Assessment of the adequacy of mathematical models. Agricultural Systems, 89:225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, J.M., Lipsitz, S.R. and Manatunga, A.K., 2000. Modeling kappa for measuring dependent categorical agreement data. Biostat 1:191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. O. Tedeschi .

Editor information

D. Sauvant J. Van Milgen P. Faverdin N. Friggens

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Wageningen Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tedeschi, L.O., Boston, R. (2011). Identifiability and accuracy: a closer look at contemporary contributions and changes in these vital areas of mathematical modelling. In: Sauvant, D., Van Milgen, J., Faverdin, P., Friggens, N. (eds) Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-712-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics