AI Chat Paper
Discover the SciOpen Platform and Achieve Your Research Goals with Ease.
Search articles, authors, keywords, DOl and etc.
{{expandStatus?'Exit ':''}}Advanced Search
Amid the rise of machine learning models, a substantial portion of plant growth models remains mechanistic, seeking to capture an in-depth understanding of the underlying phenomena governing the system’s dynamics. The development of these models typically involves parameter estimation from experimental data. Ensuring that the estimated parameters align closely with their respective “true” values is crucial since they hold biological interpretation, leading to the challenge of uniqueness in the solutions. Structural identifiability analysis addresses this issue under the assumption of perfect observations of system dynamics, whereas practical identifiability considers limited measurements and the accompanying noise. In the literature, definitions for structural identifiability vary only slightly among authors, whereas the concept and quantification of practical identifiability lack consensus, with several indices coexisting. In this work, we provide a unified framework for studying identifiability, accommodating different definitions that need to be instantiated depending on each application case. In a more applicative second step, we focus on three widely used methods for quantifying practical identifiability: collinearity indices, profile likelihood, and average relative error. We show the limitations of their local versions, and we propose a new risk index built on the profile likelihood-based confidence intervals. We illustrate the usefulness of these concepts for plant growth modeling using a discrete-time individual plant growth model, LNAS, and a continuous-time plant population epidemics model. Through this work, we aim to underline the significance of identifiability analysis as a complement to any parameter estimation study and offer guidance to the modeler.
Singh A, Ganapathysubramanian B, Singh AK, Sarkar S. Machine learning for high-throughput stress phenotyping in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2016;21(2):110–124.
Benes B, Guan K, Lang M, Long SP, Lynch JP, Marshall-Colón A, Peng B, Schnable J, Sweetlove LJ, Turk MJ. Multiscale computational models can guide experimentation and targeted measurements for crop improvement. Plant J. 2020;103(1):21–31.
Wang Y, Song Q, Jaiswal D, P. de Souza A, Long SP, Zhu XG. Development of a three-dimensional ray-tracing model of sugarcane canopy photosynthesis and its application in assessing impacts of varied row spacing. Bioenergy Res. 2017;10:626–634.
Srinivasan V, Kumar P, Long SP. Decreasing, not increasing, leaf area will raise crop yields under global atmospheric change. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23(4):1626–1635.
Evers J, Letort V, Renton M, Kang M. Computational botany: Advancing plant science through functional-structural plant modelling. Ann Bot. 2018;121(5):767–772.
Bertheloot J, Cournède P-H, Andrieu B. Nema, a functional-structural model of n economy within wheat culms after flowering: Ⅰ. Model description. Ann Bot. 2011;108(6):1085–1096.
Goelzer A, Fromion V. RBA for eukaryotic cells: Foundations and theoretical developments. bioRxiv. 2023;750182.
Baldazzi V, Bertin N, de Jong H, Génard M. Towards multiscale plant models: Integrating cellular networks. Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17(12):728–736.
De Reffye P, Hu B, Kang M, Letort V, Jaeger M. Two decades of research with the Greenlab model in agronomy. Ann Bot. 2021;127(3):281–295.
Baey C, Didier A, Lemaire S, Maupas F, Cournède P-H. Parametrization of five classical plant growth models applied to sugar beet and comparison of their predictive capacities on root yield and total biomass. Ecol Model. 2014;290:1120.
Henningsen A, Henningsen G. On estimation of the ces production function—Revisited. Econ Lett. 2011;115(1):67–69.
Bellman R, Åström KJ. On structural identifiability. Math Biosci. 1970;7(3–4):329–339.
Walter E, Pronzato L. On the identifiability and distinguishability of nonlinear parametric models. Math Comput Simul. 1996;42(2–3):125–134.
Bearup DJ, Evans ND, Chappell MJ. The input-output relationship approach to structural identifiability analysis. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2013;109(2):171–181.
Karlsson J, Anguelova M, Jirstrand M. An efficient method for structural identifiability analysis of large dynamic systems. IFAC Proc Vol. 2012;45(16):941–946.
Miao H, Xia X, Perelson AS, Wu H. On identifiability of nonlinear ode models and applications in viral dynamics. SIAM Rev Soc Ind Appl Math. 2011;53(1):3–39.
Anstett-Collin F, Denis-Vidal L, Millérioux G. A priori identifiability: An overview on definitions and approaches. Annu Rev Control. 2020;50:139–149.
Wieland F-G, Hauber AL, Rosenblatt M, Tönsing C, Timmer J. On structural and practical identifiability. Curr Opin Syst Biol. 2021;25:60–69.
Tuncer N, Le TT. Structural and practical identifiability analysis of outbreak models. Math Biosci. 2018;299:1–18.
Bellu G, Saccomani M, Audoly S, D’Angiò L. Daisy: A new software tool to test global identifiability of biological and physiological systems. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2007;88(1):52–61.
D. Rey Rostro, A. Villaverde, Strikepy: Nonlinear observability analysis of inputs, states, and parameters in Python. XLIII Jornadas de Automática. 2022:430–435.
Dong R, Goodbrake C, Harrington HA, Pogudin G. Differential elimination for dynamical models via projections with applications to structural identifiability. SIAM J Appl Algebr Geom. 2023;7(1):194–235.
Shi X, Chatzis MN. An efficient algorithm to test the observability of rational nonlinear systems with unmeasured inputs. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2022;165:Article 108345.
Rey Barreiro X, Villaverde AF. Benchmarking tools for a priori identifiability analysis. Bioinformatics. 2023;39(2):btad065.
Hong H, Ovchinnikov A, Pogudin G, Yap C. SIAN: Software for structural identifiability analysis of ode models. Bioinformatics. 2019;35(16):2873–2874.
Guedj J, Thiebaut R, Commenges D. Practical identifiability of HIV dynamics models. Bull Math Biol. 2007;69(8):2493–2513.
Raue A, Kreutz C, Maiwald T, Bachmann J, Schilling M, Klingmüller U, Timmer J. Structural and practical identifiability analysis of partially observed dynamical models by exploiting the profile likelihood. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(15):1923–1929.
Saccomani MP, Thomaseth K. The union between structural and practical identifiability makes strength in reducing oncological model complexity: A case study. Complexity. 2018;2018:2380650.
Li P, Vu QD. Identification of parameter correlations for parameter estimation in dynamic biological models. BMC Syst Biol. 2013;7:91.
Brun R, Reichert P, Künsch HR. Practical identifiability analysis of large environmental simulation models. Water Resour Res. 2001;37(4):1015–1030.
Nomm S, Moog CH. Identifiability of discrete-time nonlinear systems. IFAC Proc Vol. 2004;37(13):333–338.
Chis O-T, Banga J, Balsa-Canto E. Structural identifiability of systems biology models: A critical comparison of methods. PLOS ONE. 2011;6(11):Article e27755.
Tunali T, Tarn TJ. New results for identifiability of nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1987;32(2):146–154.
Hong H, Ovchinnikov A, Pogudin G, Yap C. Global identifiability of differential models. Commun Pure Appl Math. 2022;00:0001–0051.
Ashyraliyev M, Fomekong-Nanfack Y, Kaandorp JA, Blom JG. Systems biology: Parameter estimation for biochemical models. FEBS J. 2009;276(4):886–902.
Hengl S, Kreutz C, Timmer J, Maiwald T. Data-based identifiability analysis of non-linear dynamical models. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(19):2612–2618.
Gábor A, Villaverde AF, Banga JR. Parameter identifiability analysis and visualization in large-scale kinetic models of biosystems. BMC Syst Biol. 2017;11(1):54.
Venzon DJ, Moolgavkar SH. A method for computing profile-likelihood-based confidence intervals. J R Stat Soc. Ser C (Appl Stat). 1988;37(1):87–94.
Damay N, Le Gouis J. Radiation use efficiency of sugar beet in northern France. Eur J Agron. 1993;2(3):179.
Gilligan CA, Gubbins S, Simons SA. Analysis and fitting of an sir model with host response to infection load for a plant disease. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B. 1997;352(1351):353–364.
Lam NN, Docherty PD, Murray R. Practical identifiability of parametrised models: A review of benefits and limitations of various approaches. Math Comput Simul. 2022;199:202.
Wu Q-L, Cournède P-H, Mathieu A. An efficient computational method for global sensitivity analysis and its application to tree growth modelling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2012;107:35.
Mathieu A, Vidal T, Jullien A, Wu QL, Chambon C, Bayol B, Cournède PH. A new methodology based on sensitivity analysis to simplify the recalibration of functional-structural plant models in new conditions. Ann Bot. 2018;122(3):397.
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY 4.0).
京公网安备11010802044758号