ArticleBMC public health2024
Using meta-learning to recommend an appropriate time-series forecasting model.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiological trends and future projections of vertebral fracture in BRICS countries: a GBD 2023 study.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Dynamic temporal partitioning enhanced transformer for pediatric viral load forecasting.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
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
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.