ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
A systematic review of mathematical and machine learning models of Avian Influenza.
Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative risk assessment of avian influenza: A scoping review.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2026Review
- Modeling and control of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry using network disease dynamics.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2026Article
- Evaluating transient risk factors for avian influenza outbreaks in Canada using case-crossover study and machine learning.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Avian influenza (AI) is a highly transmissible disease with significant implications for public health, agriculture, and global food security. Mathematical, statistical, and machine learning-based models play a crucial role in understanding AI dynamics, predicting outbreaks, and evaluating intervention strategies. This systematic review assesses existing modeling approaches, categorizing studies into mathematical and statistical models, machine learning-based models, and hybrid models, with a focus on their applications in risk assessment, outbreak prediction, dynamic modeling, and parameter estimation. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The search strategy included machine learning-related terms combined with modeling approaches such as compartmental models (e.g., SEIR, SIR), statistical methods, machine learning algorithms (e.g., SVM, Random Forest, XGBoost), and hybrid frameworks. A total of 43 studies met the inclusion criteria: 26 (60.47 %) used mathematical/statistical models, 12 (27.91 %) used machine learning models, and 5 (11.63 %) employed hybrid models. Among mathematical/statistical models, 50 % addressed transmission dynamics, while machine learning models primarily focused on risk assessment (50 %) and outbreak prediction (41.67 %). Hybrid models, though less prevalent, contributed to enhanced prediction accuracy and understanding of transmission. However, validation remains inconsistent, with 25.58 % of mathematical/statistical models lacking explicit validation. Sensitivity analysis and numerical simulations dominate mathematical and statistical model validation, whereas machine learning studies commonly use F1-score, confusion matrices, and external validation datasets. Persistent challenges include limited generalizability of datasets, inconsistency in validation protocols, and high computational costs. This review highlights the need for enhanced data sharing, integration of environmental and real-time information, standardized validation methods, and further development of hybrid approaches to strengthen model reliability and improve the prediction and control of future AI outbreaks.
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.