ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of ARIMA and LSTM for prediction of hemorrhagic fever at different time scales in China.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting the prevalence and estimating the economic burden of ischemic heart disease in China: Based on long short-term memory model.Medicine · 2025Article
- Explainable dual LSTM-autoencoders with exogenous features for anomaly detection and supply chain forecasting.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A comparative study of time series foundation models for hand, foot, and mouth disease forecasting: TimesFM, Moirai, and traditional approaches.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Effects of missing data imputation methods on univariate blood pressure time series data analysis and forecasting with ARIMA and LSTM.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- A hybrid model for hand-foot-mouth disease prediction based on ARIMA-EEMD-LSTM.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- A Disentangled VAE-BiLSTM Model for Heart Rate Anomaly Detection.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Impact of Tree Cover Loss on Carbon Emission: A Learning-Based Analysis.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
- Prediction of global omicron pandemic using ARIMA, MLR, and Prophet models.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Multilayer Perceptron Approach with Conventional ARIMA in Modeling and Prediction of COVID-19 Daily Death Cases.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Predicting the Number of Reported Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Guiyang, China, Based on Time Series Analysis Techniques.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.