| Literature DB >> 27083696 |
Padet Siriyasatien1,2, Atchara Phumee1, Phatsavee Ongruk3, Katechan Jampachaisri4, Kraisak Kesorn5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many popular dengue forecasting techniques have been used by several researchers to extrapolate dengue incidence rates, including the K-H model, support vector machines (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN). The time series analysis methodology, particularly ARIMA and SARIMA, has been increasingly applied to the field of epidemiological research for dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and other infectious diseases. The main drawback of these methods is that they do not consider other variables that are associated with the dependent variable. Additionally, new factors correlated to the disease are needed to enhance the prediction accuracy of the model when it is applied to areas of similar climates, where weather factors such as temperature, total rainfall, and humidity are not substantially different. Such drawbacks may consequently lower the predictive power for the outbreak.Entities:
Keywords: Climate factor analysis; Dengue hemorrhagic fever; Forecasting model; Multivariate poisson regression; Prediction model
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27083696 PMCID: PMC4833916 DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-1034-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Fig. 1Map of morbidity rate of dengue in Thailand reported by Health Info in Thailand (http://www.healthinfo.in.th/). The study areas were the three provinces of Nakhon Pathom, Ratchaburi, and Samut Sakhon in the central region of Thailand. The high morbidity rate (per 100,000 populations) of DHF between 2007 and 2012 is indicated by the red color
Independent and dependent variables used in the proposed forecasting model
| Independent variables | Source | Data type | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Average temperature (AvgTemp) | Thai Meteorological department | Continuous | Celsius (°C) |
| 2. Average rainfall (AvgRain) | Thai Meteorological department | Continuous | Millimeters (mm) |
| 3. Average humidity (AvgHumid) | Thai Meteorological department | Continuous | Percentage (%) |
| 4. Average wind speed (AvgWind) | Thai Meteorological department | Continuous | Miles per hour (mph) |
| 5. | Parasitology Department, Chulalongkorn University | Continuous | Percentage (%) |
| 6. Female mosquito infection rate (Fmosquito) | Parasitology Department, Chulalongkorn University | Continuous | Percentage (%) |
| 7. Male mosquito infection rate (Mmosquito) | Parasitology Department, Chulalongkorn University | Continuous | Percentage (%) |
| 8. Season | - | Nominal | N/A |
| 9. Population (Pop) | Total population in each studied region | Continuous | Number of people |
| 10. Dengue cases | National Trustworthy and Competent Authority Epidemiological Surveillance and Investigation Department (NTCAESI) | Continuous | Cases per 100,000 individuals |
Correlation coefficient of climate factors
| AvgRain | AvgTemp | AvgWind | AvgHumid | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AvgRain | 1.00 | −0.66 | −0.40 | 0.64 |
| <0.0001* | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
| AvgTemp | 1.00 | 0.59 | −0.97 | |
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |||
| AvgWind | 1.00 | −0.59 | ||
| <0.0001 | ||||
| AvgHumid | 1.00 |
Pearson correlation coefficient
* p-value
Fig. 2Histogram of dengue rate in the studied regions from 2007 to 2012, classified by season
The effect of four main variables on dengue incidence in MPR fitting
| Variables | LR |
|
|---|---|---|
| Season | 5.50 | 0.064 |
| Fmosquito | 3.53 | 0.060 |
| Mmosquito | 2.60 | 0.107 |
| AegRate | 1.14 | 0.285 |
likelihood ratio statistics
Model comparison
| Model | Variables | AIC | BIC | MAPE (%) | Model compared | Chi-square |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Season + Fmosquito + Mmosquito + AegRate | 160.33 | 178.15 | 325.38 | - | - | - |
| 2 | Season + Fmosquito + Mmosquito | 159.32 | 174.17 | 336.96 | 2 vs. 1 | 0.49 | 0.482 |
| 3 | Season + Fmosquito |
|
| 326.81 | 3 vs. 2 | 0.47 | 0.491 |
| 4 | Season + Fmosquito + Season × Fmosquito | 160.15 | 177.96 |
| 3 vs. 4 | 1.06 | 0.588 |
H0: Model-2 is appropriate vs. H1: Model-1 is appropriate
H0: Model-3 is appropriate vs. H1: Model-2 is appropriate
H0: Model-3 is appropriate vs. H1: Model-4 is appropriate
Estimation of regression coefficients, standard errors, Wald statistics, and p-values of the MPR model
| Variablesa | Coefficient | Standard error | Wald statistics |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −8.16 | 0.28 | 833.17 | <0.001 |
| Season1 | 0.55 | 0.26 | 4.69 | 0.030 |
| Season2 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.83 | 0.361 |
| Fmosquito | 0.02 | 0.01 | 5.90 | 0.052 |
aSeason1 = rainy (May–Aug); Season2 = summer (Jan–Apr); Season3 = winter (Sep–Dec) and is the baseline of this analysis
Fig. 3Line chart comparing actual dengue cases and predicted values between 2007 and 2012