Forecasting seasonal influenza activity in Canada—Comparing seasonal <scp>Auto‐Regressive</scp> integrated moving average and artificial neural network approaches for public health preparedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Public health preparedness is based on timely and accurate information. Time series forecasting using disease surveillance data is an important aspect of preparedness. This study compared two approaches of time series forecasting: seasonal auto-regressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) modelling and the artificial neural network (ANN) algorithm. The goal was to model weekly seasonal influenza activity in Canada using SARIMA and compares its predictive accuracy, based on root mean square prediction error (RMSE) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE), to that of an ANN. METHODS: An initial SARIMA model was fit using automated model selection by minimizing the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Further inspection of the autocorrelation function and partial autocorrelation function led to 'manual' model improvements. ANNs were trained iteratively, using an automated process to minimize the RMSE and MAE. RESULTS: A total of 378, 462 cases of influenza was reported in Canada from the 2010-2011 influenza season to the end of the 2019-2020 influenza season, with an average yearly incidence risk of 20.02 per 100,000 population. Automated SARIMA modelling was the better method in terms of forecasting accuracy (per RMSE and MAE). However, the ANN correctly predicted the peak week of disease incidence while the other models did not. CONCLUSION: Both the ANN and SARIMA models have shown to be capable tools in forecasting seasonal influenza activity in Canada. It was shown that applying both in tandem is beneficial, SARIMA better forecasted overall incidence while ANN correctly predicted the peak week.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".