MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319434742 · doi:10.2196/42832

Predicting Measles Outbreaks in the United States: Evaluation of Machine Learning Approaches

2023· article· en· W4319434742 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boshu Ru, Stephanie Kujawski, Nelson Lee Afanador, Richard Baumgartner, Manjiri Pawaskar, Amar K. Das

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionCluster analysisMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMeaslesComputer scienceStatisticsOutbreakReceiver operating characteristicMathematicsVaccinationMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Measles, a highly contagious viral infection, is resurging in the United States, driven by international importation and declining domestic vaccination coverage. Despite this resurgence, measles outbreaks are still rare events that are difficult to predict. Improved methods to predict outbreaks at the county level would facilitate the optimal allocation of public health resources. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to validate and compare extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and logistic regression, 2 supervised learning approaches, to predict the US counties most likely to experience measles cases. We also aimed to assess the performance of hybrid versions of these models that incorporated additional predictors generated by 2 clustering algorithms, hierarchical density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (HDBSCAN) and unsupervised random forest (uRF). METHODS: We constructed a supervised machine learning model based on XGBoost and unsupervised models based on HDBSCAN and uRF. The unsupervised models were used to investigate clustering patterns among counties with measles outbreaks; these clustering data were also incorporated into hybrid XGBoost models as additional input variables. The machine learning models were then compared to logistic regression models with and without input from the unsupervised models. RESULTS: scores of 0.595-0.601 versus 0.385-0.426. Logistic regression or logistic regression hybrid models had higher sensitivity than XGBoost or XGBoost hybrid models (0.837-0.857 vs 0.704-0.735) but a lower positive predictive value (0.122-0.141 vs 0.340-0.367) and specificity (0.793-0.821 vs 0.952-0.958). The hybrid versions of the logistic regression and XGBoost models had slightly higher areas under the precision-recall curve, specificity, and positive predictive values than the respective models that did not include any unsupervised features. CONCLUSIONS: XGBoost provided more accurate predictions of measles cases at the county level compared with logistic regression. The threshold of prediction in this model can be adjusted to align with each county's resources, priorities, and risk for measles. While clustering pattern data from unsupervised machine learning approaches improved some aspects of model performance in this imbalanced data set, the optimal approach for the integration of such approaches with supervised machine learning models requires further investigation.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207