ArticlePloS one2013
The use of quantile regression to forecast higher than expected respiratory deaths in a daily time series: a study of New York City data 1987-2000.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forecasting higher than expected numbers of health events provides potentially valuable insights in its own right, and may contribute to health services management and syndromic surveillance. This study investigates the use of quantile regression to predict higher than expected respiratory deaths. Data taken from 70,830 deaths occurring in New York were used. Temporal, weather and air quality measures were fitted using quantile regression at the 90th-percentile with half the data (in-sample). Four QR models were fitted: an unconditional model predicting the 90th-percentile of deaths (Model 1), a seasonal/temporal (Model 2), a seasonal, temporal plus lags of weather and air quality (Model 3), and a seasonal, temporal model with 7-day moving averages of weather and air quality. Models were cross-validated with the out of sample data. Performance was measured as proportionate reduction in weighted sum of absolute deviations by a conditional, over unconditional models; i.e., the coefficient of determination (R1). The coefficient of determination showed an improvement over the unconditional model between 0.16 and 0.19. The greatest improvement in predictive and forecasting accuracy of daily mortality was associated with the inclusion of seasonal and temporal predictors (Model 2). No gains were made in the predictive models with the addition of weather and air quality predictors (Models 3 and 4). However, forecasting models that included weather and air quality predictors performed slightly better than the seasonal and temporal model alone (i.e., Model 3 > Model 4 > Model 2) This study provided a new approach to predict higher than expected numbers of respiratory related-deaths. The approach, while promising, has limitations and should be treated at this stage as a proof of concept.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.