Comparative Analysis of Practical Identifiability Methods for an SEIR Model

Omar Saucedo,Amanda Laubmeier,Tingting Tang,Benjamin Levy,Lale Asik,Tim Pollington,Olivia Prosper
2024-02-25
Abstract:Identifiability of a mathematical model plays a crucial role in parameterization of the model. In this study, we establish the structural identifiability of a Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR) model given different combinations of input data and investigate practical identifiability with respect to different observable data, data frequency, and noise distributions. The practical identifiability is explored by both Monte Carlo simulations and a Correlation Matrix approach. Our results show that practical identifiability benefits from higher data frequency and data from the peak of an outbreak. The incidence data gives the best practical identifiability results compared to prevalence and cumulative data. In addition, we compare and distinguish the practical identifiability by Monte Carlo simulations and a Correlation Matrix approach, providing insights for when to use which method for other applications.
Methodology,Populations and Evolution,Quantitative Methods
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper mainly discusses the practical identifiability problem of the SEIR (Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered) model. The SEIR model is commonly used to study the dynamics of infectious diseases, but its parameters are often not directly measurable. The paper investigates the impact of different data types (such as incidence rate, prevalence rate, and cumulative incidence rate), data frequency, and noise distribution on the practical identifiability of the model parameters. The study found that higher data frequency and data during the peak period can improve identifiability, with the incidence rate data providing the best identification results. The paper also compares the differences between Monte Carlo simulation and correlation matrix methods in evaluating practical identifiability and points out the application scenarios of the two methods. The study emphasizes the importance of data type and collection frequency on parameter identification and analyzes scenarios with four different epidemic peaks and data collection windows. The results show that incidence rate data is most favorable for parameter identification, while cumulative incidence rate data has the poorest identification effect. The paper concludes by discussing the significance, limitations, and providing a research summary of these findings.