Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40352838›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Comparison of dynamic mode decomposition with other data-driven models for lung cancer incidence rate prediction.

L Raymond Guo, Jifu Tan, M Courtney Hughes

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

L Raymond GuoDepartment of Interdisciplinary Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, United States.
Jifu TanDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, United States.
M Courtney HughesDepartment of Public Health, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Public health data analysis is critical to understanding disease trends. Existing analysis methods struggle with the complexity of public health data, which includes both location and time factors. Machine learning offers powerful tools but can be computationally expensive and require specialized knowledge. Dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) is an alternative that offers efficient analysis with fewer resources. This study explores applying DMD in public health using lung cancer data and compares it with other machine learning models. Methods: We analyzed lung cancer incidence data (2000-2021) from 1,013 US counties. Machine learning models (random forest, gradient boosting machine, support vector machine) were trained and optimized on the training data. We also employed time series, a linear regression model, and DMD for comparison. All models were evaluated based on their ability to predict 2021 lung cancer incidence rates. Results: The time series model achieved the lowest root mean squared error, followed by random forest. Meanwhile, DMD had an RMSE similar to that of Random Forest. Nearly all counties in Kentucky had higher lung cancer incidence rates, while states like California, New Mexico, Utah, and Idaho showed lower trends. Conclusion: In summary, DMD offers a promising alternative for public health professionals to capture underlying trends and potentially have lower computational demands compared to other machine learning models.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsMachine LearningForecastingHumansIncidencePublic HealthSupport Vector MachineUnited Statesdynamic mode decompositiongradient boosting machinelung cancermachine learningpublic health datarandom forest

Identifiers

PMID40352838
PMCPMC12062055

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.