Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31088446›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Machine learning to refine decision making within a syndromic surveillance service.

I R Lake, F J Colón-González, G C Barker, R A Morbey, G E Smith, A J Elliot

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The Next Frontiers in Preventive and Personalized Healthcare: Artificial Intelligent-powered Solutions.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Artificial Intelligence: Review of Current and Future Applications in Medicine.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

I R LakeSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. I.Lake@uea.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4407-5357
F J Colón-GonzálezSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
G C BarkerNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK.
R A MorbeyNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK.
G E SmithNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK.
A J ElliotNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK.
Public Health England · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research HPRU-2012-10141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorldwide, syndromic surveillance is increasingly used for improved and timely situational awareness and early identification of public health threats. Syndromic data streams are fed into detection algorithms, which produce statistical alarms highlighting potential activity of public health importance. All alarms must be assessed to confirm whether they are of public health importance. In England, approximately 100 alarms are generated daily and, although their analysis is formalised through a risk assessment process, the process requires notable time, training, and maintenance of an expertise base to determine which alarms are of public health importance. The process is made more complicated by the observation that only 0.1% of statistical alarms are deemed to be of public health importance. Therefore, the aims of this study were to evaluate machine learning as a tool for computer-assisted human decision-making when assessing statistical alarms.

methodsA record of the risk assessment process was obtained from Public Health England for all 67,505 statistical alarms between August 2013 and October 2015. This record contained information on the characteristics of the alarm (e.g. size, location). We used three Bayesian classifiers- naïve Bayes, tree-augmented naïve Bayes and Multinets - to examine the risk assessment record in England with respect to the final 'Decision' outcome made by an epidemiologist of 'Alert', 'Monitor' or 'No-action'. Two further classifications based upon tree-augmented naïve Bayes and Multinets were implemented to account for the predominance of 'No-action' outcomes.

resultsThe attributes of each individual risk assessment were linked to the final decision made by an epidemiologist, providing confidence in the current process. The naïve Bayesian classifier performed best, correctly classifying 51.5% of 'Alert' outcomes. If the 'Alert' and 'Monitor' actions are combined then performance increases to 82.6% correctly classified. We demonstrate how a decision support system based upon a naïve Bayes classifier could be operationalised within an operational syndromic surveillance system.

conclusionsWithin syndromic surveillance systems, machine learning techniques have the potential to make risk assessment following statistical alarms more automated, robust, and rigorous. However, our results also highlight the importance of specialist human input to the process.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMachine LearningSentinel SurveillanceAlgorithmsBayes TheoremEnglandHumansPublic HealthRisk AssessmentArtificial intelligenceBayes’ theoremDecision makingMachine learningPublic healthSyndromic surveillance

Identifiers

PMID31088446
PMCPMC6515660
OpenAlexW2946472592

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.