ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Comparison of dynamic mode decomposition with other data-driven models for lung cancer incidence rate prediction.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.