Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34525098›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Comparison of machine learning methods for estimating case fatality ratios: An Ebola outbreak simulation study.

Alpha Forna, Ilaria Dorigatti, Pierre Nouvellet, Christl A Donnelly

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alpha FornaSchool of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4485-8511
Ilaria DorigattiDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Pierre NouvelletDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Christl A DonnellyDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/R015600/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) algorithms are now increasingly used in infectious disease epidemiology. Epidemiologists should understand how ML algorithms behave within the context of outbreak data where missingness of data is almost ubiquitous.

methodsUsing simulated data, we use a ML algorithmic framework to evaluate data imputation performance and the resulting case fatality ratio (CFR) estimates, focusing on the scale and type of data missingness (i.e., missing completely at random-MCAR, missing at random-MAR, or missing not at random-MNAR).

resultsAcross ML methods, dataset sizes and proportions of training data used, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve decreased by 7% (median, range: 1%-16%) when missingness was increased from 10% to 40%. Overall reduction in CFR bias for MAR across methods, proportion of missingness, outbreak size and proportion of training data was 0.5% (median, range: 0%-11%).

conclusionML methods could reduce bias and increase the precision in CFR estimates at low levels of missingness. However, no method is robust to high percentages of missingness. Thus, a datacentric approach is recommended in outbreak settings-patient survival outcome data should be prioritised for collection and random-sample follow-ups should be implemented to ascertain missing outcomes.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksMachine LearningModels, StatisticalComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalDatasets as TopicHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansResearch DesignSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID34525098
PMCPMC8443081

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.