Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37046528›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

On the Implementation of the Artificial Neural Network Approach for Forecasting Different Healthcare Events.

Huda M Alshanbari, Hasnain Iftikhar, Faridoon Khan, Moeeba Rind, Zubair Ahmad, Abd Al-Aziz Hosni El-Bagoury

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Predicting the severity of COVID-19 using machine learning methods.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Huda M AlshanbariDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, College of Science, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-5154-7477
Hasnain IftikharDepartment of Mathematics, City University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar 25000, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-8533-5410
Faridoon KhanDepartment of Economics, Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan.
Moeeba RindDepartment of Education, Abasyn University, Peshawar 25000, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Zubair AhmadDepartment of Statistics, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan.
Abd Al-Aziz Hosni El-BagouryHigher Institute of Engineering and Technology, El-Mahala El-Kobra 61111, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-2853-0762
Quaid-i-Azam University · PKHigher Institute of Engineering · EGPakistan Institute of Development Economics · PKPrincess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University · SAUniversity of Peshawar · PK

Funding

Huda M Alshanbari PNURSP2023R 299
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rising number of confirmed cases and deaths in Pakistan caused by the coronavirus have caused problems in all areas of the country, not just healthcare. For accurate policy making, it is very important to have accurate and efficient predictions of confirmed cases and death counts. In this article, we use a coronavirus dataset that includes the number of deaths, confirmed cases, and recovered cases to test an artificial neural network model and compare it to different univariate time series models. In contrast to the artificial neural network model, we consider five univariate time series models to predict confirmed cases, deaths count, and recovered cases. The considered models are applied to Pakistan's daily records of confirmed cases, deaths, and recovered cases from 10 March 2020 to 3 July 2020. Two statistical measures are considered to assess the performances of the models. In addition, a statistical test, namely, the Diebold and Mariano test, is implemented to check the accuracy of the mean errors. The results (mean error and statistical test) show that the artificial neural network model is better suited to predict death and recovered coronavirus cases. In addition, the moving average model outperforms all other confirmed case models, while the autoregressive moving average is the second-best model.

Indexed as

artificial neural networkcoronavirus disease 2019forecastinghealthcare phenomenaunivariate time series models

Identifiers

PMID37046528
PMCPMC10093335
OpenAlexW4362474989

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.