Introduction: Natural history models must often be estimated from data that do not directly capture disease transitions. Semi-Markov processes let the risk of progression depend on the time spent in a health state, which Markov models need extra states to represent. Their limitation is computational: discretizing time introduces approximation error, and simulating individuals introduces Monte Carlo error and a non-differentiable calibration objective. Methods: We show that the model-implied prevalence, incidence and cause-specific mortality of a continuous-time semi-Markov model satisfy convolution equations that become a small linear system when Laplace-transformed. Solving it on a grid of complex frequencies and inverting with an accelerated Fourier series returns the targets without a time grid or Monte Carlo error, and yields exact first- and second-order derivatives for one additional linear solve each. These support Newton-type maximum likelihood estimation, gradient-informed Bayesian sampling, and local identifiability diagnostics. We apply our open-source implementation to a urinary bladder cancer model calibrated to SEER incidence and mortality by age and stage. Results: The method reproduced an independent implementation to within its accuracy (maximum relative difference 8x10 -6 ) and evaluated all targets, their gradient, and their Hessian in 1.3, 2.5, and 9.1 milliseconds; a one-year-cycle cohort approximation deviated by up to 42% and a two-million-person microsimulation by up to 811%. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimates agreed, and second-order information showed that the aggregate targets constrain where individuals go from preclinical states far better than how long they stay. Early-stage incidence and mortality showed systematic misfit across age. Conclusions: The framework supplies existing calibration algorithms with fast, exact model evaluations and derivatives for models whose transition hazards depend on time in state rather than on age.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Subiabre et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: