Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200512›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Using meta-learning to recommend an appropriate time-series forecasting model.

Nasrin Talkhi, Narges Akhavan Fatemi, Mehdi Jabbari Nooghabi, Ehsan Soltani, Azadeh Jabbari Nooghabi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Nasrin TalkhiDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Narges Akhavan FatemiDepartment of Statistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Mehdi Jabbari NooghabiDepartment of Statistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. jabbarinm@um.ac.ir.
Ehsan SoltaniSurgical Oncology Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Azadeh Jabbari NooghabiSurgical Oncology Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are various forecasting algorithms available for univariate time series, ranging from simple to sophisticated and computational. In practice, selecting the most appropriate algorithm can be difficult, because there are too many algorithms. Although expert knowledge is required to make an informed decision, sometimes it is not feasible due to the lack of such resources as time, money, and manpower.

methodsIn this study, we used coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) data, including the absolute numbers of confirmed, death and recovered cases per day in 187 countries from February 20, 2020, to May 25, 2021. Two popular forecasting models, including Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and exponential smoothing state-space model with Trigonometric seasonality, Box-Cox transformation, ARMA errors, Trend, and Seasonal components (TBATS) were used to forecast the data. Moreover, the data were evaluated by the root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and symmetric mean absolute percentage error (SMAPE) criteria to label time series. The various characteristics of each time series based on the univariate time series structure were extracted as meta-features. After that, three machine-learning classification algorithms, including support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and artificial neural network (ANN) were used as meta-learners to recommend an appropriate forecasting model.

resultsThe finding of the study showed that the DT model had a better performance in the classification of time series. The accuracy of DT in the training and testing phases was 87.50% and 82.50%, respectively. The sensitivity of the DT algorithm in the training phase was 86.58% and its specificity was 88.46%. Moreover, the sensitivity and specificity of the DT algorithm in the testing phase were 73.33% and 88%, respectively.

conclusionIn general, the meta-learning approach was able to predict the appropriate forecasting model (ARIMA and TBATS) based on some time series features. Considering some characteristics of the desired COVID-19 time series, the ARIMA or TBATS forecasting model might be recommended to forecast the death, confirmed, and recovered trend cases of COVID-19 by the DT model.

Indexed as

COVID-19LearningAlgorithmsHumansKnowledgeTime FactorsARIMACOVID-19ForecastingMachine-learningMeta-learningTBATS

Identifiers

PMID38200512
PMCPMC10782782

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.