Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29298320›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Ensemble method for dengue prediction.

Anna L Buczak, Benjamin Baugher, Linda J Moniz, Thomas Bagley, Steven M Babin, Erhan Guven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Leveraging probabilistic forecasts for dengue preparedness and control: The 2024 Dengue Forecasting Sprint in Brazil.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Ensemble approaches for short-term dengue fever forecasts: A global evaluation study.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Anna L BuczakJohns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4468-7719
Benjamin BaugherJohns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland, United States of America.
Linda J MonizJohns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland, United States of America.
Thomas BagleyDuke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Steven M BabinJohns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland, United States of America.
Erhan GuvenJohns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the 2015 NOAA Dengue Challenge, participants made three dengue target predictions for two locations (Iquitos, Peru, and San Juan, Puerto Rico) during four dengue seasons: 1) peak height (i.e., maximum weekly number of cases during a transmission season; 2) peak week (i.e., week in which the maximum weekly number of cases occurred); and 3) total number of cases reported during a transmission season. A dengue transmission season is the 12-month period commencing with the location-specific, historical week with the lowest number of cases. At the beginning of the Dengue Challenge, participants were provided with the same input data for developing the models, with the prediction testing data provided at a later date.

methodsOur approach used ensemble models created by combining three disparate types of component models: 1) two-dimensional Method of Analogues models incorporating both dengue and climate data; 2) additive seasonal Holt-Winters models with and without wavelet smoothing; and 3) simple historical models. Of the individual component models created, those with the best performance on the prior four years of data were incorporated into the ensemble models. There were separate ensembles for predicting each of the three targets at each of the two locations. PRINCIPAL

findingsOur ensemble models scored higher for peak height and total dengue case counts reported in a transmission season for Iquitos than all other models submitted to the Dengue Challenge. However, the ensemble models did not do nearly as well when predicting the peak week.

conclusionsThe Dengue Challenge organizers scored the dengue predictions of the Challenge participant groups. Our ensemble approach was the best in predicting the total number of dengue cases reported for transmission season and peak height for Iquitos, Peru.

Indexed as

DengueHumansModels, TheoreticalPeruProbabilityPuerto Rico

Identifiers

PMID29298320
PMCPMC5752022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.