Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41231961›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Comparing machine learning, deep learning, and reinforcement learning performance in Culex pipiens predictive modeling.

Wei Yin, Sanad H Ragab, Michael G Tyshenko, Teresa Feria Arroyo, Tamer Oraby

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Wei YinSchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5824-2289
Sanad H RagabDepartment of Zoology and Entomology, Faculty of Science (Boys), Al-Azhar University, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt.
Michael G TyshenkoRisk Sciences International, Ottawa, Canada.
Teresa Feria ArroyoSchool of Integrative Biological and Chemical Sciences, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, United States of America.
Tamer OrabySchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8176-1324

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) methods have been used to predict the presence of species in classification problems. Another set of methods, called reinforcement learning (RL), has been used in training agents to perform various tasks, but not in predicting species distribution. Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae), commonly known as the common house mosquito, is a globally distributed species prevalent in temperate and subtropical regions. They serve as a primary vector for West Nile Virus (WNV), a mosquito-borne pathogen that affects humans and other animals. The study objective is to compare the performance of logistic regression, random forest classifier, deep neural networks, and the RL methods, including Q-learning, deep Q-network (DQN), REINFORCE, and Actor-Critic, in predicting the historical presence of C. pipiens through their potential geographic distribution in the USA. The comparison showed similar performance across approaches, with reinforcement learning methods like DQN and REINFORCE showing effective performance using fewer features, making them as great prediction tools for changing environments or situations with limited resources. Moreover, the results revealed that altitude and annual precipitation were the most important bioclimatic variables predicting the historical presence of C. pipiens.

Indexed as

CulexDeep LearningMachine LearningAnimalsMosquito VectorsNeural Networks, ComputerReinforcement, Psychology

Identifiers

PMID41231961
PMCPMC12614784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.