Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19683069›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2010

Comparing early outbreak detection algorithms based on their optimized parameter values.

Xiaoli Wang, Daniel Zeng, Holly Seale, Su Li, He Cheng, Rongsheng Luan, Xiong He, Xinghuo Pang, Xiangfeng Dou, Quanyi Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Adjusting outbreak detection algorithms for surveillance during epidemic and non-epidemic periods.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Xiaoli WangInstitute for Infectious Diseases, Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Capital Medical University School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Beijing 100013, China.
Daniel Zeng
Holly Seale
Su Li
He Cheng
Rongsheng Luan
Xiong He
Xinghuo Pang
Xiangfeng Dou
Quanyi Wang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany researchers have evaluated the performance of outbreak detection algorithms with recommended parameter values. However, the influence of parameter values on algorithm performance is often ignored.

methodsBased on reported case counts of bacillary dysentery from 2005 to 2007 in Beijing, semi-synthetic datasets containing outbreak signals were simulated to evaluate the performance of five outbreak detection algorithms. Parameters' values were optimized prior to the evaluation.

resultsDifferences in performances were observed as parameter values changed. Of the five algorithms, space-time permutation scan statistics had a specificity of 99.9% and a detection time of less than half a day. The exponential weighted moving average exhibited the shortest detection time of 0.1 day, while the modified C1, C2 and C3 exhibited a detection time of close to one day.

conclusionThe performance of these algorithms has a correlation to their parameter values, which may affect the performance evaluation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceChinaComputer SimulationDisease OutbreaksDysentery, BacillaryHumansModels, StatisticalPopulation SurveillancePublic Health InformaticsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID19683069
PMCPMC7185865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.