Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35030203›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparison of ARIMA and LSTM for prediction of hemorrhagic fever at different time scales in China.

Rui Zhang, Hejia Song, Qiulan Chen, Yu Wang, Songwang Wang, Yonghong Li

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Impact of Tree Cover Loss on Carbon Emission: A Learning-Based Analysis.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rui ZhangChinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Hejia SongNational Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Qiulan ChenChinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Yu WangNational Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Songwang WangChinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6541-8692
Yonghong LiNational Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Chinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study intends to build and compare two kinds of forecasting models at different time scales for hemorrhagic fever incidence in China.

methodsAutoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and Long Short-Term Memory Neural Network (LSTM) were adopted to fit monthly, weekly and daily incidence of hemorrhagic fever in China from 2013 to 2018. The two models, combined and uncombined with rolling forecasts, were used to predict the incidence in 2019 to examine their stability and applicability.

resultsARIMA (2, 1, 1) (0, 1, 1)12, ARIMA (1, 1, 3) (1, 1, 1)52 and ARIMA (5, 0, 1) were selected as the best fitting ARIMA model for monthly, weekly and daily incidence series, respectively. The LSTM model with 64 neurons and Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGDM) for monthly incidence, 8 neurons and Adaptive Moment Estimation (Adam) for weekly incidence, and 64 neurons and Root Mean Square Prop (RMSprop) for daily incidence were selected as the best fitting LSTM models. The values of root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of the models combined with rolling forecasts in 2019 were lower than those of the direct forecasting models for both ARIMA and LSTM. It was shown from the forecasting performance in 2019 that ARIMA was better than LSTM for monthly and weekly forecasting while the LSTM was better than ARIMA for daily forecasting in rolling forecasting models.

conclusionsBoth ARIMA and LSTM could be used to build a prediction model for the incidence of hemorrhagic fever. Different models might be more suitable for the incidence prediction at different time scales. The findings can provide a good reference for future selection of prediction models and establishments of early warning systems for hemorrhagic fever.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalNeural Networks, ComputerChinaForecastingHemorrhagic Fevers, ViralHumansIncidence

Identifiers

PMID35030203
PMCPMC8759700
OpenAlexW4225698213

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.