Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41028448›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Probabilistic forecasting of hand, foot and mouth disease in Mainland China using Bayesian additive regression tree model.

Xiaoran Geng, Yuan Shi, Yue Ou, Fei Yin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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

4 authors.

Xiaoran Geng *Department of Research and Teaching, Anyang Tumor Hospital, Anyang, People's Republic of China.
Yuan Shi *Department of General Surgery, Anyang Tumor Hospital, Anyang, People's Republic of China.
Yue OuWest China School of Public Health and West China Fourth Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China.
Fei YinWest China School of Public Health and West China Fourth Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China. scu_yinfei@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81872713Science and Technology Program of Henan, China 242102310267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a serious public health concern in China. Accurately forecasting HFMD and providing forecast uncertainty is significant for decision making by public health workers. However, existing studies have mainly focused on the accuracy of point predictions, with limited research using probabilistic predictions to provide uncertainty. In this study, we used Bayesian additive regression tree probabilistic model for point forecasting and providing forecasting intervals and compared the performance with ARIMA model based on the monthly number of HFMD cases in seven regions of mainland China from June 2008 to December 2018. Compared with ARIMA model, the mean values of MAPE and RMSE of BART model were 42.463 and 4124.997, which decreased by 73.465% and 16.332%, and the mean value of PCC was 0.921, which improved by 10.432%. The interval prediction results showed that the BART model had the smallest CWC values in study areas, covering the actual values with a narrower interval at the 95% confidence level. The BART probabilistic model is suitable for HFMD surveillance at the provincial level in mainland China because of its high point and interval prediction accuracy and strong generalization ability, which helps public health workers in decision making.

Indexed as

Hand, Foot and Mouth DiseaseModels, StatisticalBayes TheoremChinaForecastingHumansBayesian additive regression treeForecasting uncertaintyHFMDMainland China

Identifiers

PMID41028448
PMCPMC12484543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.