MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999251197 · doi:10.1101/2020.01.14.906297

Machine learning and dengue forecasting: Comparing random forests and artificial neural networks for predicting dengue burdens at the national sub-national scale in Colombia

2020· preprint· en· W2999251197 on OpenAlexaff
Naizhuo Zhao, Katia Charland, Mabel Carabalí, Elaine O. Nsoesie, Mathieu Maher-Giroux, Erin E. Rees, Mengru Yuan, César García-Balaguera, Gloria Jaramillo Ramirez, Kate Zinszer

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestDengue feverMean squared errorArtificial neural networkStatisticsMean absolute errorMachine learningEnsemble forecastingEconometricsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The robust estimate and forecast capability of random forests (RF) has been widely recognized, however this ensemble machine learning method has not been widely used in mosquito-borne disease forecasting. In this study, two sets of RF models were developed for the national and departmental levels in Colombia to predict weekly dengue cases at 12-weeks ahead. A national model based on artificial neural networks (ANN) was also developed and used as a comparator to the RF models. The various predictors included historic dengue cases, satellite-derived estimates for vegetation, precipitation, and air temperature, population counts, income inequality, and education. Our RF model trained on the national data was more accurate for department-specific weekly dengue cases estimation compared to a local model trained only on the department’s data. Additionally, the forecast errors of the national RF model were smaller to those of the national ANN model and were increased with the forecast horizon increasing from one-week ahead (mean absolute error, MAE: 5.80; root mean squared error, RMSE: 11.10) to 12-weeks ahead (MAE: 13.38; RMSE: 26.82). There was considerable variation in the relative importance of predictors dependent on forecast horizon. The environmental and meteorological predictors were relatively important for short-term dengue forecast horizons while socio-demographic predictors were relevant for longer-term forecast horizons. This study showed the potential of RF in dengue forecasting with also demonstrating the feasibility of using a national model to forecast at finer spatial scales. Furthermore, sociodemographic predictors are important to include to capture longer-term trends in dengue. Author summary Dengue virus has the highest disease burden of all mosquito-borne viral diseases, infecting 390 million people annually in 128 countries. Forecasting is an important warning mechanism that can help with proactive planning and response for clinical and public health services. In this study, we compare two different machine learning approaches to dengue forecasting: random forest (RF) and neural networks (NN). National and local (departmental-level) models were compared and used to predict dengue cases in the future. The results showed that the counts of future dengue cases were more accurately estimated by RF than by NN. It was also shown that environmental and meteorological predictors were more important for forecast accuracy for shorter-term forecasts while socio-demographic predictors were more important for longer-term forecasts. Finally, the national model applied to local data was more accurate in dengue forecasting compared to the local model. This research contributes to the field of disease forecasting and highlights different considerations for future forecasting studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207