Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39145229›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024

Enhancing infectious disease prediction model selection with multi-objective optimization: an empirical study.

Deren Xu, Weng Howe Chan, Habibollah Haron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Deren XuFaculty of Computing, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Computing, Johor, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Weng Howe ChanUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Big Data Centre, Ibnu Sina Institute For Scientific and Industrial Resarch, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Habibollah HaronFaculty of Computing, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Computing, Johor, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the pandemic continues to pose challenges to global public health, developing effective predictive models has become an urgent research topic. This study aims to explore the application of multi-objective optimization methods in selecting infectious disease prediction models and evaluate their impact on improving prediction accuracy, generalizability, and computational efficiency. In this study, the NSGA-II algorithm was used to compare models selected by multi-objective optimization with those selected by traditional single-objective optimization. The results indicate that decision tree (DT) and extreme gradient boosting regressor (XGBoost) models selected through multi-objective optimization methods outperform those selected by other methods in terms of accuracy, generalizability, and computational efficiency. Compared to the ridge regression model selected through single-objective optimization methods, the decision tree (DT) and XGBoost models demonstrate significantly lower root mean square error (RMSE) on real datasets. This finding highlights the potential advantages of multi-objective optimization in balancing multiple evaluation metrics. However, this study's limitations suggest future research directions, including algorithm improvements, expanded evaluation metrics, and the use of more diverse datasets. The conclusions of this study emphasize the theoretical and practical significance of multi-objective optimization methods in public health decision support systems, indicating their wide-ranging potential applications in selecting predictive models.

Indexed as

Infectious disease predictionModel selectionMulti-objective optimizationNSGA-IIPublic health

Identifiers

PMID39145229
PMCPMC11323180

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.