ArticleScientific reports2024
Machine learning to improve the understanding of rabies epidemiology in low surveillance settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biosurveillance and early outbreak detection of rabies in settings with limited laboratory capacity using spatiotemporal clustering and a machine learning framework.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning performance for a small dataset: random oversampling improves data imbalances and fairness.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Higher free-roaming dog density sustains rabies virus transmission in Haiti.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The influence, promise, and potential perils of artificial intelligence in veterinary medicine: a call for improved awareness and literacy.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Research trends and hotspots in viral neglected tropical diseases: a bibliometric analysis.Future microbiology · 2025Article
- Two Decades of Human Rabies in Brazil: Epidemiological Trends, Emerging Risks and Treatment Challenges.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In low and middle-income countries, a large proportion of animal rabies investigations end without a conclusive diagnosis leading to epidemiologic interpretations informed by clinical, rather than laboratory data. We compared Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) with Logistic Regression (LR) for their ability to estimate the probability of rabies in animals investigated as part of an Integrated Bite Case Management program (IBCM). To balance our training data, we used Random Oversampling (ROS) and Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique. We developed a risk stratification framework based on predicted rabies probabilities. XGB performed better at predicting rabies cases than LR. Oversampling strategies enhanced the model sensitivity making them the preferred technique to predict rare events like rabies in a biting animal. XGB-ROS classified most of the confirmed rabies cases and only a small proportion of non-cases as either high (confirmed cases = 85.2%, non-cases = 0.01%) or moderate (confirmed cases = 8.4%, non-cases = 4.0%) risk. Model-based risk stratification led to a 3.2-fold increase in epidemiologically useful data compared to a routine surveillance strategy using IBCM case definitions. Our study demonstrates the application of machine learning to strengthen zoonotic disease surveillance under resource-limited settings.
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.