Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33170848›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Comparing machine learning with case-control models to identify confirmed dengue cases.

Tzong-Shiann Ho, Ting-Chia Weng, Jung-Der Wang, Hsieh-Cheng Han, Hao-Chien Cheng, Chun-Chieh Yang, Chih-Hen Yu, Yen-Jung Liu, Chien Hsiang Hu, Chun-Yu Huang and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
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 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. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

14 authors.

Tzong-Shiann HoDepartment of Pediatrics, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-2951-6679
Ting-Chia WengDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-2285-4413
Jung-Der WangDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-3176-4500
Hsieh-Cheng HanResearch Center for Applied Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Hao-Chien ChengInstitute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, College of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-2356-4493
Chun-Chieh YangInstitute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, College of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Chih-Hen YuDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Yen-Jung LiuInstitute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, College of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Chien Hsiang HuDepartment of Medical Informatics, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Chun-Yu HuangInstitute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, College of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Ming-Hong ChenDepartment of Medical Informatics, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Chwan-Chuen KingInstitute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Yen-Jen OyangInstitute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, College of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Ching-Chuan LiuDepartment of Pediatrics, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent decades, the global incidence of dengue has increased. Affected countries have responded with more effective surveillance strategies to detect outbreaks early, monitor the trends, and implement prevention and control measures. We have applied newly developed machine learning approaches to identify laboratory-confirmed dengue cases from 4,894 emergency department patients with dengue-like illness (DLI) who received laboratory tests. Among them, 60.11% (2942 cases) were confirmed to have dengue. Using just four input variables [age, body temperature, white blood cells counts (WBCs) and platelets], not only the state-of-the-art deep neural network (DNN) prediction models but also the conventional decision tree (DT) and logistic regression (LR) models delivered performances with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves areas under curves (AUCs) of the ranging from 83.75% to 85.87% [for DT, DNN and LR: 84.60% ± 0.03%, 85.87% ± 0.54%, 83.75% ± 0.17%, respectively]. Subgroup analyses found all the models were very sensitive particularly in the pre-epidemic period. Pre-peak sensitivities (<35 weeks) were 92.6%, 92.9%, and 93.1% in DT, DNN, and LR respectively. Adjusted odds ratios examined with LR for low WBCs [≤ 3.2 (x103/μL)], fever (≥38°C), low platelet counts [< 100 (x103/μL)], and elderly (≥ 65 years) were 5.17 [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.96-6.76], 3.17 [95%CI: 2.74-3.66], 3.10 [95%CI: 2.44-3.94], and 1.77 [95%CI: 1.50-2.10], respectively. Our prediction models can readily be used in resource-poor countries where viral/serologic tests are inconvenient and can also be applied for real-time syndromic surveillance to monitor trends of dengue cases and even be integrated with mosquito/environment surveillance for early warning and immediate prevention/control measures. In other words, a local community hospital/clinic with an instrument of complete blood counts (including platelets) can provide a sentinel screening during outbreaks. In conclusion, the machine learning approach can facilitate medical and public health efforts to minimize the health threat of dengue epidemics. However, laboratory confirmation remains the primary goal of surveillance and outbreak investigation.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringMachine LearningAdolescentAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesDengueDeveloping CountriesDisease OutbreaksFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPublic HealthYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33170848
PMCPMC7654779

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.