ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Formulating and evaluating time series algorithms to forecast daily asthma hospital admissions.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Asthma exacerbations are frequent causes of pediatric hospital admissions. We sought to develop a time series algorithm to forecast next-day daily asthma hospitalizations. Methods: Daily hospitalizations for asthma were collected at Cincinnati Children's from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2023. We evaluated Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), Exponential Smoothing (ETS), Prophet, and Ensemble models to forecast next-day asthma hospitalizations validated on 2023 data, considering varying historical training data lengths. Forecasts were calibrated to identify days exceeding a 5% high-risk threshold of historical totals and considered multiple validation years and years before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 5,593 hospital admissions were recorded for asthma. Over 2,922 days, 166 days met the 5% high-risk threshold equating to 6 or more admissions. The Ensemble (Median Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE): 46.7%; Positive Predictive Value (PPV): 0.278; Negative Predictive Value (NPV): 0.942; Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC): 0.740; Sensitivity: 0.800; Specificity: 0.656) model achieved higher accuracy of high-risk days than ARIMA (MAPE: 46.5%; PPV: 0.278; NPV: 0.942; AUC: 0.709; Sensitivity: 0.760; Specificity: 0.571), ETS (MAPE: 47.2%; PPV: 0.222; NPV: 0.939; AUC: 0.711; Sensitivity: 0.800; Specificity: 0.668), and Prophet (MAPE: 48.9%; PPV: 0.444; NPV: 0.951; AUC: 0.732; Sensitivity: 0.680; Specificity: 0.741) models. Conclusions: Our Ensemble model of mean predictions from ARIMA, ETS, and Prophet models was the most accurate in forecasting future asthma hospitalizations. Integrating forecasting techniques with clinical operations could enable proactive prevention through enhanced population care management.
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.