ArticlePloS one2025
Predicting the frequency of positive laboratory submissions for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in Ontario, Canada, using autoregressive integrated moving average, exponential smoothing, random forest, and recurrent neural network.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) is endemic in many pig-producing countries and poses significant health and economic challenges. Enhanced surveillance strategies are essential for effective disease management. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of different time-series modeling techniques to predict weekly PRRSV-positive laboratory submissions in Ontario, Canada. Ten years of PRRSV diagnostic data were obtained from the Animal Health Laboratory at the University of Guelph and were processed into a weekly time series. The dataset was analyzed with autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), exponential smoothing (ETS), random forest (RF), and recurrent neural network (RNN) models. Two validation strategies were employed: a traditional train-test split and a simulated prospective rolling forecast. Model accuracy was evaluated using common predictive error metrics. Descriptive analysis indicated a gradual increase in PRRSV positive submissions over time, with no consistent seasonal pattern. ARIMA and ETS models generally overpredict case counts, while RF and RNN tended to underpredict them. Among the evaluated models, the RF regression model most accurately captured the underlying time-series dynamics and produced the lowest prediction errors across both validation approaches. Despite outperforming other models, the RF model's high relative prediction errors limit its suitability for accurate forecasting of PRRSV-positive submissions in Ontario's routine surveillance system. Further data refinement and algorithm improvements are warranted.
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.