Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33064770›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Weekly dengue forecasts in Iquitos, Peru; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Singapore.

Corey M Benedum, Kimberly M Shea, Helen E Jenkins, Louis Y Kim, Natasha Markuzon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Forecasting and Early Warning Systems for Dengue Outbreaks: Updated Narrative Review.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Corey M BenedumDraper, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0218-5048
Kimberly M SheaDepartment of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Helen E JenkinsDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Louis Y KimDraper, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4021-9408
Natasha MarkuzonDraper, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredictive models can serve as early warning systems and can be used to forecast future risk of various infectious diseases. Conventionally, regression and time series models are used to forecast dengue incidence, using dengue surveillance (e.g., case counts) and weather data. However, these models may be limited in terms of model assumptions and the number of predictors that can be included. Machine learning (ML) methods are designed to work with a large number of predictors and thus offer an appealing alternative. Here, we compared the performance of ML algorithms with that of regression models in predicting dengue cases and outbreaks from 4 to up to 12 weeks in advance. Many countries lack sufficient health surveillance infrastructure, as such we evaluated the contribution of dengue surveillance and weather data on the predictive power of these models.

methodsWe developed ML, regression, and time series models to forecast weekly dengue case counts and outbreaks in Iquitos, Peru; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Singapore from 1990-2016. Forecasts were generated using available weekly dengue surveillance, and weather data. We evaluated the agreement between model forecasts and actual dengue observations using Mean Absolute Error and Matthew's Correlation Coefficient (MCC).

resultsFor near term predictions of weekly case counts and when using surveillance data, ML models had 21% and 33% less error than regression and time series models respectively. However, using weather data only, ML models did not demonstrate a practical advantage. When forecasting weekly dengue outbreaks 12 weeks in advance, ML models achieved a maximum MCC of 0.61.

conclusionsOur results identified 2 scenarios when ML models are advantageous over regression model: 1) predicting dengue weekly case counts 4 weeks ahead when dengue surveillance data are available and 2) predicting weekly dengue outbreaks 12 weeks ahead when dengue surveillance data are unavailable. Given the advantages of ML models, dengue early warning systems may be improved by the inclusion of these models.

Indexed as

DengueDisease OutbreaksForecastingHumansModels, BiologicalPeruPopulation SurveillancePuerto RicoSingaporeTime FactorsWeather

Identifiers

PMID33064770
PMCPMC7567393

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.