Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Assessing treatment efficacy for interval-censored endpoints using multistate semi-Markov models fit to multiple data streams

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Monte Carlo expectation-maximization algorithm can fit multistate semi-Markov models to intermittently observed, multi-stream trial data, and uses it to estimate that REGEN-COV prophylaxis reduced SARS-CoV-2…

desk verdict The MCEM-with-importance-sampling machinery is a real, well-validated methodological contribution; the REGEN-2069 clinical numbers are plausible but rest on a measurement-defined infection endpoint that the paper never stress-tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14097 v3 pith:7QB57U2Z submitted 2025-01-23 stat.ME stat.AP

Raphael Morsomme , C. Jason Liang , Allyson Mateja , Dean A. Follmann , Meagan P. O'Brien , Chenguang Wang , Jonathan Fintzi This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62N0162M0562P10
keywords multistatesemi-Markovmodelsinterval-censoreddataMonteCarloexpectation-maximizationimportancesamplingmultiplestreamsSARS-CoV-2protectiveefficacypanel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces a computationally efficient Monte Carlo expectation-maximization (MCEM) framework for fitting multistate semi-Markov models when the data are interval-censored, incomplete, or subject to measurement error. The motivating application is the REGEN-2069 trial, where symptom onset, weekly RT-qPCR testing, and end-of-study serology each give a partial view of infection and recovery. Using the fitted model, the paper estimates that REGEN-COV reduced the risk of any infection by 60.4%, reduced asymptomatic infection by 38.7%, and shortened mean detectable viral shedding from 13.0 to 6.2 days. A sympathetic reader would care because the method offers a general way to synthesize multiple, imperfect data streams into estimates of protection and disease dynamics that crude tabulations or Markov models cannot reliably provide.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a five-state progressive multistate model (naive, PCR-positive asymptomatic, PCR-negative post-infection, symptomatic PCR-positive, symptomatic PCR-negative) combined with an MCEM estimation algorithm. In each E-step, complete histories are proposed from a time-homogeneous Markov surrogate conditioned on the observed data, using forward-filtering backwards-sampling to impute unknown states at observation times and uniformization to fill in endpoint-conditioned paths between visits; self-normalized importance weights correct for the discrepancy between the Markov proposal and the semi-Markov target. An ascent-based rule augments the Monte Carlo sample until changes in the Q-function are distinguishable from Monte Carlo error, and spline or Weibull baseline intensities allow semi-parametric inference. This construction sidesteps the intractable transition probabilities that make semi-Markov models difficult to fit to panel data, and a marginal-likelihood estimator built from the same importance weights enables model comparison via AIC.

What would settle it

Simulate a trial from the paper's nine-state simulation model but add a fraction of infected participants who clear virus before the first PCR assessment and never seroconvert, then fit the five-state model and check whether the estimated protective efficacy against asymptomatic infection is biased relative to the simulated truth by more than the simulation's Monte Carlo error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that intractable semi-Markov likelihoods for intermittently observed multistate processes can be maximized by an MCEM algorithm that samples complete sample paths from a data-conditioned Markov surrogate and reweights them by importance sampling. In the REGEN-2069 reanalysis, this yields estimates that REGEN-COV reduced all-comer infection by 60.4% (95% CI 44.9-72.5%), symptomatic infection by 83.6% (95% CI 69.4-93.1%), and asymptomatic infection by 38.7% (95% CI 10.0-60.8%), while reducing the mean duration of PCR-detectable shedding from 13.0 days (95% CI 11.5-14.6) to 6.2 days (95% CI 5.0-7.8). Simulations show that crude event tabulation and Markov model fits are biased for these functionals, whereas the semi-Markov fits achieve negligible bias and near-nominal coverage, supporting the authors' conclusion that the method recovers difficult-to-measure endpoints implicated by asymptomatic infection.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that being infected is the same as being measurably affected, specifically shedding virus detectable by nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR, so a person who is infected but never tests positive, never shows symptoms, and never seroconverts is classified as uninfected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, interval-censored multi-stream trial data no longer require Markov assumptions: semi-Markov models with Weibull or spline intensities give approximately unbiased estimates of transition intensities and their functionals with nominal coverage.
  • For REGEN-2069 specifically, the estimates imply that REGEN-COV's protection is broad, cutting infection risk by 60.4% overall and by 83.6% for symptomatic infection, while shortening the period of detectable shedding from 13.0 to 6.2 days, a change with direct implications for transmission.
  • The 38.7% estimate of protective efficacy against asymptomatic infection is positive but smaller than the symptomatic efficacy, and the model attributes part of this apparent benefit to the fact that antibody treatment shortens shedding below the detection threshold of weekly PCR sampling.
  • Because seroconversion was less frequent after asymptomatic infections on the mAb arm, the data support a mechanism in which antibody treatment suppresses viral load, symptoms, and immune exposure together.
  • The framework extends beyond COVID-19 to any progressive disease process whose state is partially observed through several measurement modalities, with AIC-based model choice made feasible by the marginal-likelihood estimator.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the definition of infection as detectable RT-qPCR positivity is the load-bearing assumption, and if some infected participants never shed detectable virus or seroconvert, the estimated asymptomatic-infection protective efficacy would shift; a sensitivity analysis that redefines infection or adds a fraction of undetectable infections would quantify this.
  • Editorial inference: the same importance-sampling scheme could be extended to disease-driven observation processes, where sicker patients are tested more often, by modifying the proposal to condition on the observation times, an extension the paper notes but does not implement.
  • Editorial inference: because the algorithm provides a Monte Carlo estimate of the marginal likelihood, it could be combined with penalized-likelihood or weighted-bootstrap Bayesian procedures for model selection and multiple-testing corrections in other panel-data trials.
  • Editorial inference: the comparison with phase-type models suggests a testable roadmap: using a phase-type or discrete mixture of Markov processes as the proposal distribution could improve robustness in settings where a simple Markov surrogate yields a small effective sample size.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Monte Carlo expectation-maximization (MCEM) framework with data-conditioned Markov proposals for fitting multistate semi-Markov models when the data are interval-censored or observed through multiple, possibly error-prone, data streams. The methods are applied to the REGEN-2069 trial of REGEN-COV prophylaxis, using symptom onset, weekly RT-qPCR, and end-of-EAP serology to estimate protective efficacy against infection (including asymptomatic infection), effects on seroconversion, and the duration of viral shedding. Simulation studies compare the proposed approach with crude tabulation, Markov models, and phase-type approximations, and report good performance for the main efficacy parameters, with some under-coverage for restricted mean infection time and PCR-positivity duration. The application estimates PE against infection of 60.4%, PE against asymptomatic infection of 38.7%, and a reduction in mean shedding duration from 13.0 to 6.2 days.

Significance. If the results are sound, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution: a general, computationally feasible inference framework for semi-Markov multistate models under complex coarsening, with importance-sampling recycling inside MCEM and semi-parametric baseline intensities. The manuscript is also notable for shipping reproducible code, for a careful simulation design that uses a richer 9-state generative model to validate a reduced 5-state inferential model, and for a direct comparison against rejection-based sampling and phase-type approximations. The application addresses a clinically important question, and the analysis illustrates that naive tabulation of panel data can be badly biased, which is a valuable message for practitioners.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1 / Table 1b / Section C.1] The application-level estimand is defined by detectability: infection is equated with 'being measurably affected, as evidenced by viral shedding detectable by nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR' (Section 2.1), and Table 1b assumption 1 treats participants who never become symptomatic, PCR+, or seropositive as uninfected. The simulation validation of the REGEN-2069 design does not stress this assumption because, as stated in Section C.1, 'All infected participants are assumed to have detectable virus.' Since the fitted model itself implies that mAb shortens shedding and reduces seroconversion, any infected participants who never shed detectable virus and never seroconvert would be counted as uninfected, and the missingness would plausibly be differential by arm. The reported PE against asymptomatic infection (38.7%; 95% CI 10.0-60.8) and the mAb-arm shedding duration would then mix a true biological effect with a detection effect. The paper should either consistently label the endpoint as 'detectable infection' in the abstract and Discussion, or provide a sensitivity analysis that relaxes assumption 1 (e.g., a latent infection state with assumed detection probabilities).
  2. [Section 3.2 / Table 2(c) / Section 4.3] The simulation study reports coverage of 0.85-0.87 for the restricted mean time to infection on the placebo arm and 0.90 for the restricted mean duration of PCR positivity on the placebo arm under the semi-parametric five-state model (Table 2(c); Tables S9-S10), with the paper attributing the under-coverage to infections detected only by serology. These are precisely the functionals used for the headline clinical estimates in Section 4.3: the placebo-arm shedding duration of 13.0 days (95% CI 11.5-14.6) and the comparison with 6.2 days on the mAb arm. The paper should either provide calibration of the bootstrap intervals for these functionals under the actual REGEN-2069 observation design, or explicitly qualify the reported confidence intervals as potentially anti-conservative for the duration endpoint.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'Our algorithm provide substantial computational improvements' has a subject-verb agreement error; it should read 'Our algorithm provides.'
  2. [Author affiliations] The affiliation 'Regeneron Pharmaceuticles' appears to contain a typo and should likely read 'Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.'
  3. [Introduction] The word 'identifiabile' should be 'identifiable'.
  4. [Table S6] In the table note, 'folloowup' should be 'follow-up'.
  5. [References] The reference to Akaike (1998) is spelled 'Aikaike' in the reference list and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MCEM derivation and simulation benchmarks are self-contained, and the infection definition is an explicit operational choice rather than a masked equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivations are internally non-circular. The MCEM estimator is a direct likelihood method: the Q-function (Eq. 7) is the expected complete-data log-likelihood, and the importance-sampling weights (Eq. 9; Appendix A.2) are the standard ratio of target to proposal densities, with the data-conditional indicators canceling because paths are sampled conditionally on the data. The proposal Markov model is fit separately and is used only as a sampling mechanism, not as the inferential target. The two simulation studies provide independent checks: data are generated from a 9-state semi-Markov model (Appendix C.1, Tables S4-S6) or a Weibull illness-death model, and inference uses reduced 5-state models, so the fitted models are not the same objects that generated the truth. The REGEN-2069 estimates (PE 60.4%, PE-asymptomatic 38.7%, shedding durations 13.0 vs 6.2 days) are functionals of the fitted intensity estimates, not parameters tuned to hit observed case counts. The paper is explicit that 'infection' is operationally defined as transition to PCR+ (Section 2.1; Table 1b assumption 1), and Appendix C.1 states 'All infected participants are assumed to have detectable virus' in the simulations; this is a transparent identifiability and definitional assumption, not a hidden equivalence, and it limits external interpretation but does not make the estimation circular. The Discussion also cautions that the MCEM algorithm is not a panacea for non-identifiability. Self-citations (O'Brien 2021; Follmann 2022) provide the primary trial result and a prior seroconversion hypothesis; neither is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives. No equation-level reduction of a claimed prediction to a fitted input was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The clinical estimates depend on a chain of stated but unverifiable assumptions about the ordering and detectability of infection, plus standard semi-Markov and non-informative observation assumptions. The paper is transparent about most of these, but it does not quantify sensitivity to their violation. No new physical entities are introduced; the latent sample paths are standard missing data.

free parameters (4)
  • Baseline transition intensity parameters for the four transitions (exponential rates, Weibull shape and scale…
    Estimated by MCEM from REGEN-2069 data; these parameters determine all reported functionals and are central to the clinical estimates.
  • mAb covariate effects (log hazard ratios) on each transition
    Treatment effects estimated from the same data; they drive protective efficacy and relative risk estimates.
  • B-spline knot locations and degrees = Knots at 3.5, 10.5, 17.5 days for 1->2 and 2->4 transitions; one knot at 7 days for 2->3 and 4->5; degree 1
    Chosen by hand and model selection rather than by a data-adaptive penalty; this affects flexibility and the final estimates.
  • MCEM tuning parameters (initial effective sample size, tolerance epsilon, alpha, gamma, kappa) = Initial ESS 10 to 100; tolerance and probability bounds described in Appendix A.4.3
    User-specified parameters that control convergence and computational cost; they are standard but not automatic.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Participants who never become symptomatic, PCR+, or seropositive are uninfected.
    Table 1b assumption 1; implies infections that produce no detectable virus and no seroconversion are invisible, potentially biasing infection incidence and PE for asymptomatic infection downward.
  • domain assumption PCR positivity precedes symptom onset, symptom onset precedes seroconversion, no transitions from PCR- to PCR+, and no sero-reversion on study.
    Table 1b assumptions 2 through 5; defines allowable transitions in Figure 1c and the state space; if the order is violated the model is misspecified.
  • domain assumption Infection is defined as the transition to detectable PCR+.
    Section 2.1 states 'we treat infection as the occurrence of a participant being measurably affected, as evidenced by viral shedding detectable by nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR.'
  • domain assumption Semi-Markov transition intensities depend on time since state entry and covariates, not on the full history.
    Equation (2) underlies the likelihood and the MCEM algorithm; this is a standard but restrictive assumption for disease progression modeling.
  • domain assumption Observation times and missingness are independent of the disease process.
    Stated as a limitation in Section 5; if participants are assessed because of symptoms or other disease-driven processes, the likelihood would be misspecified.
  • domain assumption The Markov surrogate proposal has finite importance weights and adequate effective sample size for the MCEM E-step.
    Section 2.4.1; no formal guarantee of bounded weight variance is given, and the authors rely on Pareto smoothing and ESS monitoring.
  • domain assumption Observed states are not misclassified: PCR, symptom, and serology data are accurate but possibly incomplete.
    The likelihood treats data as coarsened rather than error-prone; measurement error in PCR or serology would bias estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing treatment efficacy for interval-censored endpoints using multistate semi-Markov models fit to multiple data streams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7QB57U2Z

@misc{pith2026250114097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing treatment efficacy for interval-censored endpoints using multistate semi-Markov models fit to multiple data streams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7QB57U2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14097}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a computationally efficient and general approach for utilizing multiple, possibly interval-censored, data streams to study complex biomedical endpoints using multistate semi-Markov models. Our motivating application is the REGEN-2069 trial, which investigated the protective efficacy (PE) of the monoclonal antibody combination REGEN-COV against SARS-CoV-2 when administered prophylactically to individuals in households at high risk of secondary transmission. Using data on symptom onset, episodic RT-qPCR sampling, and serological testing, we estimate the PE of REGEN-COV for asymptomatic infection, its effect on seroconversion following infection, and the duration of viral shedding. We find that REGEN-COV reduced the risk of asymptomatic infection and the duration of viral shedding, and led to lower rates of seroconversion among asymptomatically infected participants. Our algorithm for fitting semi-Markov models to interval-censored data employs a Monte Carlo expectation maximization (MCEM) algorithm combined with importance sampling to efficiently address the intractability of the marginal likelihood when data are intermittently observed. Our algorithm provide substantial computational improvements over existing methods and allows us to fit semi-parametric models despite complex coarsening of the data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14097 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (1a) Raw data and derived model states for 3 hypothetical study participants. (1b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Notation for a latent multistate process (2a) and data (2b). The true path, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative incidence of disease (3a) and infection (3b) by arm, estimates of key function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Markov Renewal Proportional Hazards is All You Need

    stat.AP 2025-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A mostly tutorial and application paper claims semi-Markov models with the DSH estimator produce smoother transition probability curves than Aalen-Johansen in the EBMT stem cell transplant data, without quantitative v...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION article output.bibitem format.authors "author" output.check author format.key output output.year.check new.block format.title "title" output.check new.block crossref missing format.jour.vol output format.article.crossref output.nonnull format.pages output if new.block note output fin.entry FUNCTION b...

  2. [2]

    Akaike , H. (1998). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike\/ . Springer, pp.\ 199--213

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    and Keiding , N

    Andersen , P.K. and Keiding , N. (2002). Multi-state models for event history analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research\/ 11, 91--115

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    and Brookmeyer , R

    Aralis , H. and Brookmeyer , R. (2019). A stochastic estimation procedure for intermittently-observed semi- M arkov multistate models with back transitions. Statistical Methods in Medical Research\/ 28, 770--787

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    and Tancredi , A

    Barone , R. and Tancredi , A. (2022). Bayesian inference for discretely observed continuous time multi-state models. Statistics in Medicine\/ 41, 3789--3803

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    and S rensen , M

    Bladt , M. and S rensen , M. (2005). Statistical inference for discretely observed M arkov jump processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/ 67, 395--410

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    and Jones , G.L

    Caffo , B.S., Jank , W. and Jones , G.L. (2005). Ascent-based monte carlo expectation--maximization. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B\/ 67, 235--251

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    and Cook , R.J

    Cheung , L.C., Albert , P.S., Das , S. and Cook , R.J. (2022). Multistate models for the natural history of cancer progression. British Journal of Cancer\/ 127, 1279--1288

    work page 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    and Lawless , J.F

    Cook , R.J. and Lawless , J.F. (2018). Multistate Models for the Analysis of Life History Data\/ . Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton

    2018

  2. [10]

    and Lawless , J.F

    Cook , R.J. and Lawless , J.F. (2021). Independence conditions and the analysis of life history studies with intermittent observation. Biostatistics\/ 22, 455--481

    2021

  3. [11]

    and Rubin , D.B

    Dempster , A.P., Laird , N.M. and Rubin , D.B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the em algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B\/ 39, 1--22

    1977

  4. [12]

    Dorai-Raj , S. (2022). binom: Binomial Confidence Intervals for Several Parameterizations\/ . R package version 1.1-1.1

    2022

  5. [13]

    Elvira, V \' ctor, Martino, Luca, Luengo, David and Bugallo, M \'o nica F . (2019). Generalized multiple importance sampling. Statistical Science\/ 34, 129 -- 155

    2019

  6. [14]

    and others

    Follmann , D.A., Janes , H.E., Buhule , O.D., Zhou , H., Girard , B., Marks , K., Kotloff , K., Desjardins , M., Corey , L., Neuzil , K.M. and others . (2022). Antinucleocapsid antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blinded phase of the randomized, placebo-controlled mRN...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Food and Drug Administration . (2017). Multiple endpoints in clinical trials guidance for industry. Technical Report , Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Gong , R. (2022). Exact inference with approximate computation for differentially private data via perturbations. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality\/ 12, 1--26

    2022

  9. [17]

    and Stone , E.A

    Hobolth , A. and Stone , E.A. (2009). Simulation from endpoint-conditioned, continuous-time M arkov chains on a finite state space, with applications to molecular evolution. The Annals of Applied Statistics\/ 3, 1204--1231

    2009

  10. [18]

    and Lawless , J.F

    Kalbfleisch , J.D. and Lawless , J.F. (1985). The analysis of panel data under a M arkov assumption. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 80, 863--871

    1985

  11. [19]

    and others

    Lange , J.M., Gulati , R., Leonardson , A.S., Lin , D.W., Newcomb , L.F., Trock , B.J., Carter , B.H., Cooperberg , M.R., Cowan , J.E., Klotz , L.H. and others. (2018). Estimating and comparing cancer progression risks under varying surveillance protocols. The Annals of Applie...

    2018

  12. [20]

    and Minin , V.N

    Lange , J.M., Hubbard , R.A., Inoue , L.Y.T. and Minin , V.N. (2015). A joint model for multistate disease processes and random informative observation times, with applications to electronic medical records data. Biometrics\/ 71, 90--101

    2015

  13. [21]

    and Casella , G

    Levine , R.A. and Casella , G. (2001). Implementations of the monte carlo em algorithm. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics\/ 10, 422--439

    2001

  14. [22]

    Liu, Jun S and Liu, Jun S . (2001). Monte Carlo strategies in scientific computing\/ , Volume 75. Springer

    2001

  15. [23]

    Louis , T.A. (1982). Finding the observed information matrix when using the em algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/ 44, 226--233

    1982

  16. [24]

    and Marra , G

    Machado , R.J.M., van den Hout , A. and Marra , G. (2021). Penalised maximum likelihood estimation in multi-state models for interval-censored data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis\/ 153, 107057

    2021

  17. [25]

    Mandel , M. (2013). Simulation-based confidence intervals for functions with complicated derivatives. The American Statistician\/ 67, 76--81

    2013

  18. [26]

    and Snelling , T.L

    McLeod , C., Norman , R., Litton , E., Saville , B.R., Webb , S. and Snelling , T.L. (2019). Choosing primary endpoints for clinical trials of health care interventions. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications\/ 16, 100486

    2019

  19. [27]

    and Xu , J

    Newton , M.A., Polson , N.G. and Xu , J. (2021). Weighted B ayesian bootstrap for scalable posterior distributions. Canadian Journal of Statistics\/ 49, 421--437

    2021

  20. [28]

    and others

    O’Brien , M.P., Forleo-Neto , E., Musser , B.J., Isa , F., Chan , K., Sarkar , N., Bar , K.J., Barnabas , R.V., Barouch , D.H., Cohen , M.S. and others . (2021). Subcutaneous regen-cov antibody combination to prevent covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine\/ 385, 1184--1195

    2021

  21. [29]

    and Sk \"o ld , M

    Papaspiliopoulos , O., Roberts , G.O. and Sk \"o ld , M. (2007). A general framework for the parametrization of hierarchical models. Statistical Science\/ 22, 59--73

    2007

  22. [30]

    Polanco , J.I. (2024). B S pline K it.jl: a collection of B -spline tools in J ulia. https://github.com/jipolanco/BSplineKit.jl

    2024

  23. [31]

    and Eckerle , I

    Puhach , O., Meyer , B. and Eckerle , I. (2023). Sars-cov-2 viral load and shedding kinetics. Nature Reviews Microbiology\/ 21, 147--161

    2023

  24. [32]

    and Papamarkou , T

    Revels , J., Lubin , M. and Papamarkou , T. (2016). Forward-mode automatic differentiation in J ulia. arXiv:1607.07892\/

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Rubin , D.B. (1981). The bayesian bootstrap. The Annals of Statistics\/ 9, 130--134

    1981

  26. [34]

    Scott , S.L. (2002). Bayesian methods for hidden markov models: Recursive computing in the 21st century. Journal of the American statistical Association\/ 97, 337--351

    2002

  27. [35]

    Signorell , A. (2023). DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics\/ . R package version 0.99.52

    2023

  28. [36]

    Titman , A.C. (2011). Flexible nonhomogeneous M arkov models for panel observed data. Biometrics\/ 67, 780--787

    2011

  29. [37]

    and Sharples , L.D

    Titman , A.C. and Sharples , L.D. (2010). Semi- M arkov models with phase-type sojourn distributions. Biometrics\/ 66, 742--752

    2010

  30. [38]

    Vehtari, Aki, Simpson, Daniel, Gelman, Andrew, Yao, Yuling and Gabry, Jonah . (2015). Pareto smoothed importance sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.02646\/

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    and Tanner , M.A

    Wei , G.C.G. and Tanner , M.A. (1990). A monte carlo implementation of the em algorithm and the poor man's data augmentation algorithms. Journal of the American statistical Association\/ 85, 699--704

    1990

  32. [40]

    Wilkinson , D.J. (2018). Stochastic Modelling for Systems Biology\/ . CRC Press, Boca Raton

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.