2019
DOI: 10.1111/risa.13386
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recognizing Structural Nonidentifiability: When Experiments Do Not Provide Information About Important Parameters and Misleading Models Can Still Have Great Fit

Abstract: In the quest to model various phenomena, the foundational importance of parameter identifiability to sound statistical modeling may be less well appreciated than goodness of fit. Identifiability concerns the quality of objective information in data to facilitate estimation of a parameter, while nonidentifiability means there are parameters in a model about which the data provide little or no information. In purely empirical models where parsimonious good fit is the chief concern, nonidentifiability (or paramet… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For these groups, neither r nor m were independently identifiable, as indicated by long narrow ridges in each parameter's posterior sample (Figs. 2c–e; Schmidt, Emelko, & Thompson, ). That is, neither parameter could be estimated with confidence on its own, and it appeared that changes in one parameter could compensate for changes in the other (because the products r × m had somewhat well‐defined posterior distributions; see Figs.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For these groups, neither r nor m were independently identifiable, as indicated by long narrow ridges in each parameter's posterior sample (Figs. 2c–e; Schmidt, Emelko, & Thompson, ). That is, neither parameter could be estimated with confidence on its own, and it appeared that changes in one parameter could compensate for changes in the other (because the products r × m had somewhat well‐defined posterior distributions; see Figs.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They alluded to this aggregation with the inclusion of an electron micrograph image of a cluster, and attempted to estimate the degree of aggregation from the corresponding dose-response data [25]. However, it has been shown that such inference is not possible due to model non-identifiability limitations associated with the impossibility of concurrently evaluating dose response and estimating an unmeasured aggregation parameter [29,56].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is important to note that these limitations apply to any dose-response experiment in which (1) disaggregation of administered pathogens was not confirmed or (2) aggregation was known to exist but not well quantified. For this reason, it has recently been suggested that ethics approval of future dose-response experiments should be contingent upon use of disaggregated pathogens (or pathogens aggregated to a known extent) [56].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A Monte Carlo based exposure dose is usually applied in the QMRA of water supplies ( Schijven et al., 2011 ; Whitaker et al., 2005 ) rather than a deterministic (point-value) dose assumption, which is also widely used. A Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) analysis, based on the Gamma prior distribution ( Schmidt et al., 2013 , 2019 ) was applied in this study to determine the 5%, 50 and 95% percentiles of the target counts of E. coli in both contaminated reclaimed water of vegetables and polluted seawater at the Forcatella beaches. Specifically, we considered the host’s ingestion (or consumption) of raw vegetables, such as salads, tomatoes, cucumbers, and fruits (e.g.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%