ArticlePeerJ2022
Prediction of Ross River virus incidence in Queensland, Australia: building and comparing models.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Wildlife and Climate Change in the Emergence of One Health-Related Viral Diseases in Australia.Viruses · 2026Review
- Unpacking Ross River virus trends in Queensland: Regional insights and predictive modeling.iScience · 2025Article
- Prediction of Ross River Virus Incidence Using Mosquito Data in Three Cities of Queensland, Australia.Biology · 2023Article
- A Multi-Species Simulation of Mosquito Disease Vector Development in Temperate Australian Tidal Wetlands Using Publicly Available Data.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transmission of Ross River virus (RRV) is influenced by climatic, environmental, and socio-economic factors. Accurate and robust predictions based on these factors are necessary for disease prevention and control. However, the complicated transmission cycle and the characteristics of RRV notification data present challenges. Studies to compare model performance are lacking. In this study, we used RRV notification data and exposure data from 2001 to 2020 in Queensland, Australia, and compared ten models (including generalised linear models, zero-inflated models, and generalised additive models) to predict RRV incidence in different regions of Queensland. We aimed to compare model performance and to evaluate the effect of statistical over-dispersion and zero-inflation of RRV surveillance data, and non-linearity of predictors on model fit. A variable selection strategy for screening important predictors was developed and was found to be efficient and able to generate consistent and reasonable numbers of predictors across regions and in all training sets. Negative binomial models generally exhibited better model fit than Poisson models, suggesting that over-dispersion in the data is the primary factor driving model fit compared to non-linearity of predictors and excess zeros. All models predicted the peak periods well but were unable to fit and predict the magnitude of peaks, especially when there were high numbers of cases. Adding new variables including historical RRV cases and mosquito abundance may improve model performance. The standard negative binomial generalised linear model is stable, simple, and effective in prediction, and is thus considered the best choice among all models.
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.