PRE-CISE: A PRE-calibration Coverage, Identifiability, and SEnsitivity analysis workflow to streamline model calibration
Gracia, V.; Goldhaber-Fiebert, J. D.; Alarid-Escudero, F.
Show abstract
PurposeWe introduce PRE-CISE, a pre-calibration workflow that integrates coverage analysis, local sensitivity, and collinearity diagnostics to streamline model calibration and transparently address nonidentifiability. We demonstrate the benefits of PRE-CISE using a four-state Sick-Sicker Markov testbed and a COVID-19 case study. MethodsPRE-CISE begins with a coverage analysis to verify that model outputs generated with parameter sets drawn from their prior distribution span calibration targets, followed by local sensitivities to quantify the influence of parameters on model outputs, guiding the resizing of the prior distribution bounds to improve coverage. Identifiability is then assessed via collinearity analysis; large indices indicate practical nonidentifiability. For the testbed model, we calibrated 3 parameters to survival, prevalence, and the proportion of Sick to Sicker at 10, 20, and 30 years. For the COVID-19 model, we calibrated 11 parameters to match daily confirmed incident cases. Bayesian calibration was conducted on both analyses. ResultsCoverage analyses flagged initial misfits; local sensitivities identified the Sick-to-Sicker transition probability has a greater effect on model outputs, and resizing its prior distribution bounds improved coverage. Collinearity analyses showed that combining multiple calibration targets across time points enabled recovery of all three parameters. In the COVID-19 model, local sensitivity analyses prioritized time-varying detection rates and contact-reduction effects, reducing the search space, thereby improving calibration efficiency. Daily incident case calibration targets yielded collinearity indices below practical thresholds (e.g., < 15) for all parameter combinations, whereas weekly calibration targets were larger and closer to the cutoff. ConclusionsPRE-CISE provides a practical, transparent pathway that helps modelers refine prior distribution bounds and calibration targets before intensive calibration, improving uncertainty reporting and strengthening the reliability of model-based health policy analyses.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Learning from local to global - an efficient distributed algorithm for modeling time-to-event data 94%
- A Bayesian Framework for Estimating the Risk Ratio of Hospitalization for People with Comorbidity Infected by the SARS-CoV-2 Virus 91%
- sureLDA: A Multi-Disease Automated Phenotyping Method for the Electronic Health Record 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Bayesian Susceptible-Infectious-Hospitalized-Ventilated-Recovered Model to Predict Demand for COVID-19 Inpatient Care in a Large Healthcare System 96%
- Was R < 1 before the English lockdowns? On modelling mechanistic detail, causality and inference about Covid-19 93%
- Sorting out assortativity: when can we assess the contributions of different population groups to epidemic transmission? 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.