Identifiability and indistinguishability of nonlinear pharmacokinetic models
- 111 Downloads
Three nonlinear model structures of interest in pharmacokinetics are analyzed to determine whether the unknown, independent, model parameters can be deduced if perfect input-output data were available. This is the problem of identifiability. The method used is based on the local state isomorphism theorem. In certain circumstances, the modeler may be undecided between several model structures and it is then of interest to determine whether different model structures can be distinguished from perfect input-output data. This is the problem of model indistinguishability. The technique used, again based on the local state isomorphism theorem, parallels the similarity transformation approach for linear systems described previously in this journal. The analysis is performed on three two-compartment examples having one linear and one nonlinear (Michaelis-Menten) elimination pathway. In each model there is, on physiological and other grounds, some uncertainty over the precise location (central compartment or peripheral compartment) of one of the elimination pathways.
Key wordscompartmental models identification indistinguishability Michaelis-Menten kinetics model discrimination nonlinear systems pharmacokinetics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.E. Walter.Identifiability of State Space Models, Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, Vol. 46, Springer, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
- 6.E. Walter, Y. Lecourtier, A. Raksanyi, and J. Happel. On the distinguishability of parametric models with different structures. In J. Eisenfeld and C. DeLisi (eds),Mathematics and Computers in Biomedical Applications, Elsevier North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985.Google Scholar
- 15.K. R. Godfrey,Compartmental Models and Their Application, Academic Press, London, and New York, 1983.Google Scholar
- 17.K. R. Godfrey and J. J. DiStefano III. Identifiability of model parameters. In E. Walter (ed.),Identifiability of Parametric Models, Pergamon, Oxford, 1987, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar