| Literature DB >> 27023573 |
Lingling Zhou1,2, Jing Xia3, Lijing Yu4, Ying Wang5, Yun Shi6, Shunxiang Cai7, Shaofa Nie8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously proposed a hybrid model combining both the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and the nonlinear autoregressive neural network (NARNN) models in forecasting schistosomiasis. Our purpose in the current study was to forecast the annual prevalence of human schistosomiasis in Yangxin County, using our ARIMA-NARNN model, thereby further certifying the reliability of our hybrid model.Entities:
Keywords: ARIMA model; NARNN model; forecasting; hybrid model; schistosomiasis
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27023573 PMCID: PMC4847017 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13040355
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Autocorrelation function (ACF) and partial autocorrelation function (PACF) plots of original prevalence series (OS). (A) and (B) show ACF and PACF plots of OS (1956–2008). (C) and (D) show ACF and PACF plots after one order of differencing (1956–2008). (E) and (F) show ACF and PACF plots of OS (1956–2012). (G) and (H) show ACF and PACF plots after one order of differencing (1956–2012). Dotted lines indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Augmented dickey-fuller unit root (ADF) test of different modeling sets.
| Type | Lag | 1956–2008 | 1956–2012 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero Mean | 0 | −9.39 | <0.0001 | −9.73 | <0.0001 |
| 1 | −6.74 | <0.0001 | −6.98 | <0.0001 | |
| Single Mean | 0 | −9.60 | 0.0001 | −9.98 | 0.0001 |
| 1 | −7.04 | 0.0001 | −7.32 | 0.0001 | |
| Trend | 0 | −9.54 | <0.0001 | −9.92 | <0.0001 |
| 1 | −6.98 | <0.0001 | −7.27 | <0.0001 | |
Note: a, It was considered that there was nonexistent unit root (p < 0.05).
Parameter estimations of different modeling sets from ARIMA model.
| Modeling Set | Parameter | Estimate | Standard Error | Lag | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1956–2008 | AR1,1 | −0.33659 | 0.13474 | −2.50 | 0.0158 | 4 |
| MA1,1 | −0.59063 | 0.11667 | −5.06 | <0.0001 | 5 | |
| 1956–2012 | AR1,1 | −0.33529 | 0.12856 | −2.61 | 0.0118 | 4 |
| MA1,1 | −0.58920 | 0.11144 | −5.29 | <0.0001 | 5 |
Note: a, Parameter estimations were considered statistically significant (p < 0.05).
The white noise check of residuals from different modeling sets.
| Lag | 1956–2008 | 1956–2012 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 7.19 | 0.1262 | 7.66 | 0.1050 |
| 12 | 13.27 | 0.2090 | 13.96 | 0.1747 |
| 18 | 15.04 | 0.5219 | 15.77 | 0.4691 |
| 24 | 16.92 | 0.7679 | 17.66 | 0.7261 |
Note: a, The residual series was a white noise series (p > 0.05).
Prediction results of three models.
| Year | Original Values (%) | Pridicted Values (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARIMA | NARNN | ARIMA-NARNN | ||
| 2009 | 1.13 | 0.40 | 1.75 | 1.55 |
| 2010 | 0.65 | 1.00 | 1.44 | 0.09 |
| 2011 | 0.42 | 0.62 | 1.01 | 0.34 |
| 2012 | 0.39 | −0.96 | 0.80 | 0.38 |
| Error | ||||
| Modeling | MSE(×10 -4) | 2.8272 | 2.1089 | 0.7381 |
| MAE | 0.0123 | 0.0095 | 0.0059 | |
| MAPE | 0.1223 | 0.1056 | 0.0678 | |
| Testing | MSE(×10 -4) | 0.6267 | 0.3816 | 0.1237 |
| MAE | 0.0066 | 0.0060 | 0.0027 | |
| MAPE | 1.2791 | 1.0570 | 0.3629 | |
Optimum network parameters of different target series.
| Target Series a | Hidden Units | Delays | MSE b (×10−4) | R c | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | Validation | Testing | ||||
| OS | 16 | 5 | 1.2671 | 4.0469 | 4.4604 | 0.9838 |
| RS | 14 | 6 | 0.5022 | 1.6596 | 1.8805 | 0.8828 |
| NRS | 14 | 5 | 0.3911 | 0.4463 | 0.8199 | 0.9579 |
Notes: a, OS = original prevalence series, RS = residual series, NRS = new residual series; b, MSE = mean square error; c, R = correlation coefficient.
Figure 2Error autocorrelation plots of different target series from appropriate NARNN model. The red dotted line indicate 95% confidence intervals. All the coefficients fell within the 95% confidence limits with the exception of the autocorrelation coefficient at zero lag, indicating that the model reliably corresponds to the data. OS = original prevalence series, RS = residual series, NRS = new residual series.
Figure 3Time series response plots of different target series from the appropriate NARNN model. (A–C) display the inputs, targets, and errors versus time and also give which time points were selected for training, testing, and validation.
Figure 4The change trend plot of the prevalence of schistosomiasis in humans of Yangxin County. The black line represents the original prevalence series (1956–2012) and the red line represents the predicted prevalence series (1961–2016) from the ARIMA-NARNN model. The black dotted line gives the criteria of schistosomiasis transmission control in humans.