| Literature DB >> 28728470 |
Ruiping Wang1,2, Yonggen Jiang2, Xiaoqin Guo2, Yiling Wu2, Genming Zhao1.
Abstract
Objective The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention developed the China Infectious Disease Automated-alert and Response System (CIDARS) in 2008. The CIDARS can detect outbreak signals in a timely manner but generates many false-positive signals, especially for diseases with seasonality. We assessed the influence of seasonality on infectious disease outbreak detection performance. Methods Chickenpox surveillance data in Songjiang District, Shanghai were used. The optimized early alert thresholds for chickenpox were selected according to three algorithm evaluation indexes: sensitivity (Se), false alarm rate (FAR), and time to detection (TTD). Performance of selected proper thresholds was assessed by data external to the study period. Results The optimized early alert threshold for chickenpox during the epidemic season was the percentile P65, which demonstrated an Se of 93.33%, FAR of 0%, and TTD of 0 days. The optimized early alert threshold in the nonepidemic season was P50, demonstrating an Se of 100%, FAR of 18.94%, and TTD was 2.5 days. The performance evaluation demonstrated that the use of an optimized threshold adjusted for seasonality could reduce the FAR and shorten the TTD. Conclusions Selection of optimized early alert thresholds based on local infectious disease seasonality could improve the performance of the CIDARS.Entities:
Keywords: CIDARS; Moving percentile method; epidemic; infectious disease; optimized early alert threshold; seasonality
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28728470 PMCID: PMC6011277 DOI: 10.1177/0300060517718770
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Med Res ISSN: 0300-0605 Impact factor: 1.671
Figure 1.Flowchart of data processing and outbreak detection performance evaluation in the China Infectious Disease Automated-alert and Response System.
Figure 2.Chickenpox epidemic and nonepidemic season during 2015–2016 in Songjiang District, Shanghai, China.
Sensitivity, false alarm rate, and time to detection for 12 alternative percentiles in the moving percentile method by the whole year, epidemic season, and nonepidemic season in 2015 based on chickenpox data in Songjiang District of Shanghai, China.
| Alternative percentile | Whole year of 2015 | Epidemic season in 2015 | Nonepidemic season in 2015 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Se (%) | FAR (%) | TTD (days) | Se (%) | FAR (%) | TTD (days) | Se (%) | FAR (%) | TTD (days) | |
| P40 | 100.00 | 24.82 | 0.5 | 100.00 | 20.00 | 0.0 | 100.00 | 25.00 | 2.5 |
| P45 | 100.00 | 23.36 | 0.5 | 100.00 | 20.00 | 0.0 | 100.00 | 23.48 | 2.5 |
|
|
|
|
| 100.00 | 20.00 | 0.0 |
|
|
|
| P55 | 92.00 | 15.33 | 1.5 | 93.33 | 20.00 | 0.0 | 90.00 | 15.15 | 6.5 |
| P60 | 92.00 | 12.41 | 1.5 | 93.33 | 20.00 | 0.0 | 90.00 | 12.12 | 6.5 |
| P65 | 88.00 | 10.22 | 1.5 |
|
|
| 80.00 | 10.53 | 8.5 |
| P70 | 84.00 | 7.30 | 3.0 | 86.67 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 80.00 | 7.52 | 8.5 |
| P75 | 68.00 | 3.65 | 3.5 | 86.67 | 0.00 | 1.0 | 40.00 | 3.76 | 14.5 |
| P80 | 44.00 | 0.00 | 15.0 | 60.00 | 0.00 | 3.0 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 21.0 |
| P85 | 32.00 | 0.00 | 18.0 | 40.00 | 0.00 | 11.0 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 27.5 |
| P90 | 32.00 | 0.00 | 18.0 | 40.00 | 0.00 | 11.0 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 27.5 |
| P95 | 32.00 | 0.00 | 18.0 | 40.00 | 0.00 | 11.0 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 27.5 |
Se, sensitivity; FAR, false alarm rate; TTD, time to detection
The bold italicized text indicates the optimized early alert thresholds and corresponding evaluation indexes.
Sensitivity, false alarm rate, and time to detection for optimal threshold by epidemic season and nonepidemic season in 2016 based on chickenpox data in Songjiang District of Shanghai, China.
| Period | Optimal threshold | Signals (n) | Detected outbreaks (n) | Se (%) | FAR (%) | TTD (days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epidemic season in 2016 | P65 | 23 | 21 | 100.00 | 8.69 | 2.5 |
| Nonepidemic season in 2016 | P50 | 69 | 58 | 100.00 | 15.94 | 0.5 |
| Whole year of 2016 | P50 | 107 | 79 | 100.00 | 26.17 | 3 |
Se, sensitivity; FAR, false alarm rate; TTD, time to detection