Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41425054›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Forecasting global monthly cotton prices: the superiority of NNAR models over traditional models.

Rumita Limbu Sanwa, Raksha Khadka, Yeon Nain Chi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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

3 authors.

Rumita Limbu SanwaDepartment of Agriculture, Food, and Resource Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, MD, United States.
Raksha KhadkaDepartment of Agriculture, Food, and Resource Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, MD, United States.
Yeon Nain ChiDepartment of Agriculture, Food, and Resource Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate forecasting of agricultural commodity prices is essential for informed decision-making by farmers, traders, and policymakers. This study evaluates and compares the predictive performance of traditional statistical and machine learning models in forecasting global monthly cotton prices. Price volatility and nonlinear patterns in cotton markets present challenges for conventional models such as the Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), which often fail to capture complex dynamics. The novelty of this research lies in systematically comparing traditional statistical models (ARIMA, ETS, STL, TBATS, Theta), machine learning models (Neural Network Auto-Regressive [NNAR]), and hybrid approaches to determine the best forecasting tool. Performance was evaluated using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Error (ME), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Percentage Error (MPE), and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE). Results revealed that the NNAR (26, 1, 14) [12] model outperformed all models, achieving the lowest RMSE (1.16383774), MAE (0.832275572), and MAPE (1.19%), indicating high predictive accuracy and minimal bias. The 30-month forecast for cotton prices using the NNAR model indicates fluctuations between approximately $0.66 and $0.74 per pound, following a cyclical pattern without a clear long-term trend. These findings highlight the strength of advanced machine learning techniques, particularly NNAR, in capturing complex nonlinear patterns, improving forecasting reliability, and supporting effective decision-making in volatile cotton markets. This study provides practical insights for stakeholders seeking to anticipate cotton price changes and make informed decisions in the global market.

Indexed as

cotton price forecastinghybrid modelsNNARpredictive modeltime series

Identifiers

PMID41425054
PMCPMC12711705

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.