Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36277100›Full record

ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022

Predicting infectious disease for biopreparedness and response: A systematic review of machine learning and deep learning approaches.

Ravikiran Keshavamurthy, Samuel Dixon, Karl T Pazdernik, Lauren E Charles

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Closing the air gap: the use of drones for studying wildlife ecophysiology.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Modeling zoonotic and vector-borne viruses.Current opinion in virology · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Ravikiran KeshavamurthyPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.
Samuel DixonPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.
Karl T PazdernikPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.
Lauren E CharlesPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complex, unpredictable nature of pathogen occurrence has required substantial efforts to accurately predict infectious diseases (IDs). With rising popularity of Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques combined with their unique ability to uncover connections between large amounts of diverse data, we conducted a PRISMA systematic review to investigate advances in ID prediction for human and animal diseases using ML and DL. This review included the type of IDs modeled, ML and DL techniques utilized, geographical distribution, prediction tasks performed, input features utilized, spatial and temporal scales, error metrics used, computational efficiency, uncertainty quantification, and missing data handling methods. Among 237 relevant articles published between January 2001 and May 2021, highly contagious diseases in humans were most often represented, including COVID-19 (37.1%), influenza/influenza-like illnesses (9.3%), dengue (8.9%), and malaria (5.1%). Out of 37 diseases identified, 51.4% were zoonotic, 37.8% were human-only, and 8.1% were animal-only, with only 1.6% economically significant, non-zoonotic livestock diseases. Despite the number of zoonoses, 86.5% of articles modeled humans whereas only a few articles (5.1%) contained more than one host species. Eastern Asia (32.5%), North America (17.7%), and Southern Asia (13.1%) were the most represented locations. Frequent approaches included tree-based ML (38.4%) and feed-forward neural networks (26.6%). Articles predicted temporal incidence (66.7%), disease risk (38.0%), and/or spatial movement (31.2%). Less than 10% of studies addressed uncertainty quantification, computational efficiency, and missing data, which are essential to operational use and deployment. This study highlights trends and gaps in ML and DL for ID prediction, providing guidelines for future works to better support biopreparedness and response. To fully utilize ML and DL for improved ID forecasting, models should include the full disease ecology in a One-Health context, important food and agricultural diseases, underrepresented hotspots, and important metrics required for operational deployment.

Indexed as

Deep learningDisease forecastDisease predictionInfectious diseasesMachine learningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36277100
PMCPMC9582566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.