ArticleScientific reports2025
Probabilistic forecasting of hand, foot and mouth disease in Mainland China using Bayesian additive regression tree model.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Residual bayesian attention networks for uncertainty quantification in regression tasks.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.