| Literature DB >> 32950059 |
Yihuai Huang1, Chao Xu1, Mengzhong Ji1, Wei Xiang2,3, Da He4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate forecasting of medical service demand is beneficial for the reasonable healthcare resource planning and allocation. The daily outpatient volume is characterized by randomness, periodicity and trend, and the time series methods, like ARIMA are often used for short-term outpatient visits forecasting. Therefore, to further enlarge the prediction horizon and improve the prediction accuracy, a hybrid prediction model integrating ARIMA and self-adaptive filtering method is proposed.Entities:
Keywords: ARIMA model; Hybrid forecasting model; Medical forecasting; Self-adaptive filtering; Time series
Year: 2020 PMID: 32950059 PMCID: PMC7501710 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-020-01256-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Fig. 1The flow chat of hybrid forecasting model Based on ARIMA and Self-adaptive Filtering Method. ACF: Auto-correlation function, PACF: Partial auto-correlation function, MAE: Average absolute error
Comparison of ARIMA model and hybrid model predictive value PE
| type of data | CASE | ARIMA forecasting | ARIMA and adaptive combination forecasting | Number of iterations | Iteration time (s) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEmax | PEmin(%) | MAPE(%) | σ PE(%) | PEmax | PEmin | MAPE(%) | σ PE(%) | ||||
| Stationarity | Case 1 (348,336) ARIMA(3, 0, 3) | 106.73 | 0.34 | 38.4 | 29.2 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.101 | 0.199 | 666 | 2.28 |
Case 2 (384,372) ARIMA(2, 0, 5) | 134.71 | 3.25 | 40.91 | 35.6 | 0.62 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 2208 | 3 | |
Case 3 (852,840) ARIMA(7, 0, 7) | 49.9 | 1.8 | 15.2 | 13.9 | 0.192 | 0.003 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 1670 | 5 | |
| Cyclical and trending | Case 4 (168,156) ARIMA(5, 1, 5) | 11.0 | 0.1 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 13,892 | 7 |
Case 5 (476,464) ARIMA(6, 1, 4) | 8.25 | 0.36 | 4.67 | 0.23 | 1.29 | 0.002 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 30,492 | 10 | |
Case 6 (252,240) ARIMA(5, 1, 5) | 19.5 | 1.33 | 9.1 | 6.01 | 2.4 | 0.0003 | 0.41 | 0.74 | 1410 | 5 | |
Case 7 (178,168) ARIMA(5, 1, 5) | 3.63 | 0.33 | 1.8 | 1.15 | 1.266 | 0.0002 | 0.509 | 0.523 | 14,507 | 13 | |
| Upward trend | Case 8 (82,77) ARIMA(4, 1, 4) | 13.59 | 2.34 | 7.33 | 3.88 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 803 | 3.9 |
Case 9 (418,406) ARIMA(3, 1, 6) | 3.58 | 0.17 | 1.2 | 0.91 | 0.103 | 0.003 | 0.052 | 0.029 | 8932 | 6.8 | |
Case 10 (43,38) ARIMA(1, 1, 3) | 10.62 | 6.95 | 8.5 | 1.24 | 8.13 | 0.07 | 1.8 | 3.18 | 2805 | 4 | |
| Downward trend | Case 11 (304,296) ARIMA(6, 1, 6) | 16.81 | 2.94 | 9.78 | 5.29 | 1.204 | 0.002 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 13,050 | 10 |
Case 12 (102,92) ARIMA(1, 0, 0) | 4.83 | 0.36 | 2.6 | 1.62 | 3.62 | 0.21 | 1.7 | 0.99 | 6622 | 3.054 | |
Case 13 (65,55) ARIMA(3, 1, 3) | 6.89 | 1.08 | 4.46 | 1.6 | 5.9 | 0.64 | 3.89 | 1.77 | 4017 | 3 | |
ARIMA auto-regressive integrated moving average, PE Maximum percentage error, PE Minimum percentage error, MAPE mean absolute percentage error, σ value of the standard deviation of the PE
Fig. 2Time series of observed and predicted monthly average employment from 1962 to 1975 and values of monthly average gasoline production from 1956 to 1995. ARIMA: auto-regressive integrated moving average, Hybrid model: ARIMA-self-adaptive filtering hybrid forecasting model
Parameter estimation and testing of literature case
| Parameter | Value | Error | t-Statistic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 2.44949 | 1.84992 | 1.32411 |
| AR{1} | 0.303464 | 0.110981 | 2.73438 |
| MA{1} | −0.722583 | 0.0795293 | −9.08575 |
| Variance | 11,995.1 | 779.512 | 15.3879 |
Fig. 3Error convergence in term of iterations and iteration rounds
Comparison before and after adjustment of model parameters in literature test case
| Parameter | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| AR{1} | 0.303464 | 0.999314184310874 |
| MA{1} | −0.722583 | 0.989744187839265 |
Fig. 4The forecasting results using the hybrid forecasting method
Comparison that results of hybrid model and ANN model
| Measurement | EEMD-ANN | DWT-ANN | ANN | ARIMA | Our hybrid model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSE | 52.86 | 59.32 | 149.23 | 201.73 | 49.48 |
| MAE | 39.88 | 46.75 | 104.87 | 160.70 | 45 |
| R | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.98549 |
Fig. 5Daily time-series data of PEV and BUEA in January 2017–March 2018. PEV: prenatal examination visits, BUEV: B-ultrasound examination visitors
Unit root test of time series
| Department | stat | C Value | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| PEV | − 2.2588 | −1.9418 | 0.023482 |
| BUEV | −2.6585 | −1.9418 | 0.0082611 |
White noise test of time series
| Department | stat | C Value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| PEV | 419.93 | 12.5916 | 0 |
| BUEV | 169.9278 | 12.5916 | 0 |
Parameter estimation and testing of PEV and BUEV
| Parameter | Value | Error | t-Statistic | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEV | AR{1} | 0.995535 | 0.00972474 | 102.371 |
| MA{1} | −0.883045 | 0.0328523 | −26.8792 | |
| BUEV | AR{1} | 0.997307 | 0.00903517 | 110.381 |
| MA{1} | −0.931795 | 0.028666 | −32.5053 |
PEV prenatal examination visits, BUEV B-ultrasound examination visitors
Comparison before and after adjustment of model parameters in the PEV and BUEV
| Parameter | PEV | BUEV | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |
| AR{1} | 0.995535 | 1.000919 | 0.997307 | 1.012281 |
| MA{1} | −0.883045 | − 0.997426 | −0.931795 | − 0.99602 |
PEV prenatal examination visits, BUEV B-ultrasound examination visitors
Fig. 6Comparison of PEV and BUEA forecasting values and observed values. ARIMA: auto-regressive integrated moving average, Hybrid model: ARIMA-self-adaptive filtering hybrid forecasting model, PEV: prenatal examination visits, BUEV: B-ultrasound examination visit
Comparison of the forecasting performance of the ARIMA and Hybrid model
| ARIMA | Hybrid models | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEV | BUEV | PEV | BUEV | |
| PEmax(%) | 41.7% | 47.64% | 6.16% | 2.14% |
| PEmin(%) | 2.39% | 4.70% | 0.04% | 0.71% |
| MAPE(%) | 18.53% | 27.69% | 2.79% | 1.25% |
| σPE(%) | 11.74% | 15.39% | 1.87% | 0.38% |
ARIMA auto-regressive integrated moving average, Hybrid model ARIMA-self-adaptive filtering hybrid forecasting model, PE percentage error, PEV prenatal examination visits, BUEV B-ultrasound examination visitors, PE Maximum percentage error, PE Minimum percentage error, MAPE mean absolute percentage error, σ value of the standard deviation of the PE