Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37363925›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Comparing different models to forecast the number of mass shootings in the United States: An application of forecasting rare event time series data.

Xue Lei, Cameron A MacKenzie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Xue LeiDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5966-7406
Cameron A MacKenzieDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of mass shootings in the United States has increased in the recent decades. Understanding the future risk of the mass shootings is critical for designing strategies to mitigate the risk of mass shootings, and part of understanding the future risk is to forecast the frequency or number of mass shootings in the future. Despite the increasing trend in mass shootings, they thankfully remain rare events with fewer than 10 mass shootings occurring in a single year. Limited historical data with substantial annual variability poses challenges to accurately forecasting rare events such as the number of mass shootings in the United States. Different forecasting models can be deployed to tackle this challenge. This article compares three forecasting models, a change-point model, a time series model, and a hybrid of a time series model with an artificial neural network model. Each model is applied to forecast the frequency of mass shootings. Comparing among results from these models reveals advantages and disadvantages of each model when forecasting rare events such as mass shootings. The hybrid ARIMA-ANN model can be tuned to follow variation in the data, but the pattern of the variation may not continue into the future. The mean of the change-point model and the ARIMA model exhibit much more less annual variation and are not influenced as much by the inclusion of a single data point. The insights generated from the comparison are beneficial for selecting the best model and accurately estimating the risk of mass shootings in the United States.

Indexed as

Mass Casualty IncidentsForecastingNeural Networks, ComputerTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37363925
PMCPMC10292710

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.