Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35215129›Full record

ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Comparison of Infectious Disease Forecasting Methods across Locations, Diseases, and Time.

Samuel Dixon, Ravikiran Keshavamurthy, Daniel H Farber, Andrew Stevens, Karl T Pazdernik, Lauren E Charles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Machine learning and probabilistic approaches for forecasting infectious disease transmission and cases.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Forecasting the Monkeypox Outbreak Using Limited Data: A Case Study of Thailand.Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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.

Samuel DixonPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.
Ravikiran KeshavamurthyPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1041-3696
Daniel H FarberPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.
Andrew StevensPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.
Karl T PazdernikPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1410-4006
Lauren E CharlesPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0727-0479

Funding

Defense Threat Reduction Agency CB11029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate infectious disease forecasting can inform efforts to prevent outbreaks and mitigate adverse impacts. This study compares the performance of statistical, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) approaches in forecasting infectious disease incidences across different countries and time intervals. We forecasted three diverse diseases: campylobacteriosis, typhoid, and Q-fever, using a wide variety of features (n = 46) from public datasets, e.g., landscape, climate, and socioeconomic factors. We compared autoregressive statistical models to two tree-based ML models (extreme gradient boosted trees [XGB] and random forest [RF]) and two DL models (multi-layer perceptron and encoder-decoder model). The disease models were trained on data from seven different countries at the region-level between 2009-2017. Forecasting performance of all models was assessed using mean absolute error, root mean square error, and Poisson deviance across Australia, Israel, and the United States for the months of January through August of 2018. The overall model results were compared across diseases as well as various data splits, including country, regions with highest and lowest cases, and the forecasted months out (i.e., nowcasting, short-term, and long-term forecasting). Overall, the XGB models performed the best for all diseases and, in general, tree-based ML models performed the best when looking at data splits. There were a few instances where the statistical or DL models had minutely smaller error metrics for specific subsets of typhoid, which is a disease with very low case counts. Feature importance per disease was measured by using four tree-based ML models (i.e., XGB and RF with and without region name as a feature). The most important feature groups included previous case counts, region name, population counts and density, mortality causes of neonatal to under 5 years of age, sanitation factors, and elevation. This study demonstrates the power of ML approaches to incorporate a wide range of factors to forecast various diseases, regardless of location, more accurately than traditional statistical approaches.

Indexed as

big datacampylobacteriosisdeep learningGLARMAinfectious disease forecastingmachine learningmulti-feature fusionpredictionQ-fevertyphoid

Identifiers

PMID35215129
PMCPMC8875569

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.