ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
A unified Foot and Mouth Disease dataset for Uganda: evaluating machine learning predictive performance degradation under varying distributions.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial Patterns and Epidemiological Drivers of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreaks in Uganda.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Host-Microbe Interactions: Prospects of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Technologies in Animal Viral Disease Management.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Enhancing random forest predictive performance for foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Uganda: a calibrated uncertainty prediction approach for varying distributions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Uganda, the absence of a unified dataset for constructing machine learning models to predict Foot and Mouth Disease outbreaks hinders preparedness. Although machine learning models exhibit excellent predictive performance for Foot and Mouth Disease outbreaks under stationary conditions, they are susceptible to performance degradation in non-stationary environments. Rainfall and temperature are key factors influencing these outbreaks, and their variability due to climate change can significantly impact predictive performance. This study created a unified Foot and Mouth Disease dataset by integrating disparate sources and pre-processing data using mean imputation, duplicate removal, visualization, and merging techniques. To evaluate performance degradation, seven machine learning models were trained and assessed using metrics including accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, recall, precision and F1-score. The dataset showed a significant class imbalance with more non-outbreaks than outbreaks, requiring data augmentation methods. Variability in rainfall and temperature impacted predictive performance, causing notable degradation. Random Forest with borderline SMOTE was the top-performing model in a stationary environment, achieving 92% accuracy, 0.97 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.94 recall, 0.90 precision, and 0.92 F1-score. However, under varying distributions, all models exhibited significant performance degradation, with random forest accuracy dropping to 46%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to 0.58, recall to 0.03, precision to 0.24, and F1-score to 0.06. This study underscores the creation of a unified Foot and Mouth Disease dataset for Uganda and reveals significant performance degradation in seven machine learning models under varying distributions. These findings highlight the need for new methods to address the impact of distribution variability on predictive performance.
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.