| Literature DB >> 33919496 |
Jelena Musulin1, Sandi Baressi Šegota1, Daniel Štifanić1, Ivan Lorencin1, Nikola Anđelić1, Tijana Šušteršič2,3, Anđela Blagojević2,3, Nenad Filipović2,3, Tomislav Ćabov4, Elitza Markova-Car5.
Abstract
COVID-19 is one of the greatest challenges humanity has faced recently, forcing a change in the daily lives of billions of people worldwide. Therefore, many efforts have been made by researchers across the globe in the attempt of determining the models of COVID-19 spread. The objectives of this review are to analyze some of the open-access datasets mostly used in research in the field of COVID-19 regression modeling as well as present current literature based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods for regression tasks, like disease spread. Moreover, we discuss the applicability of Machine Learning (ML) and Evolutionary Computing (EC) methods that have focused on regressing epidemiology curves of COVID-19, and provide an overview of the usefulness of existing models in specific areas. An electronic literature search of the various databases was conducted to develop a comprehensive review of the latest AI-based approaches for modeling the spread of COVID-19. Finally, a conclusion is drawn from the observation of reviewed papers that AI-based algorithms have a clear application in COVID-19 epidemiological spread modeling and may be a crucial tool in the combat against coming pandemics.Entities:
Keywords: AI-based methods; COVID-19; open-access data; spread modeling
Year: 2021 PMID: 33919496 PMCID: PMC8073788 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Review methodology with explanations, according to PRISMA 2020 statement.
| Item | Objective | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Eligibility criteria | Articles that were included in this review were chosen according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main inclusion criteria were to only include publications that are thematically linked with the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, only articles where an AI-based approach was used in COVID-19 spread modeling were included in this systematic review. Articles related to spreading modeling without AI application and articles where AI was used in other COVID-19 related problems (e.g., clinical problems) were excluded from the review. All included studies were sorted into two groups: studies related to ML and studies related to evolutionary algorithms. |
| 6 | Information sources | The search for studies that were included in this systematic review was performed through multiple scientific databases and registers. Due to the specificity of the COVID-19 pandemic as a relatively new scientific challenge, databases of scientific papers available in open access were used. Articles collected for this review were founded by searching through the following bases: Google scholar, The Multidisciplinary Preprint Platform, PubMed, Web of Science, Arxiv, and MedArxiv. All databases were searched between 15th December 2020 and 10th April 2021. |
| 7 | Search strategy | The search for publications was performed with search filters that assure Eligibility criteria explained by PRISMA item 5. Furthermore, only articles available in open access were included in this systematic review. |
| 8 | Selection process | Determination whether the article fits the inclusion criteria is performed by multiple reviewers. All screenings were independent and the minimal number of reviewers that have screened one article is three. |
| 9 | Data collection process | Data collected from all reports are collected from the results and conclusion sections of the articles, as well as abstracts. As stated in item 8, the minimal number of three reviewers was assigned to one article. |
| 10a | Data items | All articles were evaluated according to regression measures used for evaluation of AI-based regressors (R2-score, Accuracy, MAE, RMSE). |
| 10b | All articles that do not have quantifiable results are excluded. These criteria are derived from the assumption that articles without quantifiable results can not be compared with other studies. | |
| 11 | Study risk of bias assessment | To access bias, during the reviewing process, at least three reviewers were assigned to one study. During the aforementioned process, the work of all reviewers was independent. |
| 12 | Effect measures | To unify the results of the reviewing process, only articles that have passed the criteria of all reviewers were included in the systematic review. |
| 13a | Synthesis methods | To define the impact of AI methods used on regression performances, three different syntheses were performed. The first synthesis is related to the comparison of ANN-based methods. The second synthesis is performed of RNN-based regression methods. Finally, the third synthesis was performed to compare methods based on evolutionary algorithms. |
| 13b | To synthesize the findings, all results were sorted according to three categories: the number of infected cases, the number of recovered patients, and the number of deceased patients. | |
| 13c | All three syntheses were concluded by tabulating the results according to the three described categories. | |
| 13d | Due to the multiplicity of metrics used in various studies, synthesis is performed as a qualitative comparison of achieved results. Such an approach was chosen due to the impossibility of performing a meta-analysis. | |
| 13e | Possible causes of heterogeneity among study results were not explored. | |
| 13f | To achieve the robustness of the performed syntheses, analysis of the distributions of the algorithms used were performed. Such an approach was used to prevent excessive deviation of the conducted syntheses. | |
| 14 | Reporting bias assessment | To assess the risk of bias, syntheses were performed independently by multiple reviewers. |
| 15 | Certainty assessment | To assess certainty in the body of evidence, syntheses were performed independently by multiple reviewers. |
Figure 1Visualization of the reviewing procedure using PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 2Taxonomy of the AI research in the field of COVID-19, with the research reviewed in this paper being marked with an ellipsis. SIR-Suspectible, Infectious or Recovered, ARIMA-Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average, RNN-Recurrent Neural Network, LSTM-Long Short-Term Memory, ANN-Artificial Neural Network, MLP-Multilayer Perceptron, CNN-Convolutional Neural Network, GNN-Graph Neural Network, RF-Random Forest, GA-Genetic Algorithm, GP-Genetic Programming, VOA-Virus Optimization Algorithm, PSO-Particle Swarm Optimization.
The appearance of data in the official WHO dataset.
|
|
| Country |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| … | |||||||
| 14/02/2021 | DZ | Algeria | AFRO | 210 | 110,513 | 3 | 2935 |
| 15/02/2021 | DZ | Algeria | AFRO | 198 | 110,711 | 4 | 2939 |
| 16/02/2021 | DZ | Algeria | AFRO | 183 | 110,894 | 4 | 2943 |
| 17/02/2021 | DZ | Algeria | AFRO | 175 | 111,069 | 2 | 2945 |
| 03/01/2020 | AS | American Samoa | WPRO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 04/01/2020 | AS | American Samoa | WPRO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 05/01/2020 | AS | American Samoa | WPRO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| … | |||||||
Figure 3Time-series plot of the data in the WHO dataset, for the number of COVID-19 infections, contained within the dataset.
Figure 4Time-series plot of the data in the WHO dataset, for the number patient deaths caused by COVID-19, contained within the dataset.
An example of the data contained in the JHU dataset.
| Province/ | Country/ | Lat | Long | 1/22 | 1/23 | … | 3/21 | 3/22 | … |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thailand | 15 | 101 | 2 | 3 | 411 | 599 | |||
| Japan | 36 | 138 | 2 | 1 | 1007 | 1086 | |||
| Singapore | 1.2833 | 103.8333 | 0 | 1 | 432 | 455 | |||
| Nepal | 28.1667 | 84.25 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Malaysia | 2.5 | 112.5 | 0 | 0 | … | 1183 | 1306 | … | |
| British | Canada | 49.2827 | −123.121 | 0 | 0 | 424 | 424 | ||
| Victoria | Australia | −37.8136 | 144.9631 | 0 | 0 | 229 | 296 | ||
| Queensland | Australia | −28.0167 | 153.4 | 0 | 0 | 221 | 221 |
Figure 5Time-series plot of the data in the JHU COVID-19 dataset, for confirmed and recovered patients, contained within the dataset.
Figure 6Time-series plot of the data in the JHU COVID-19 dataset, for deceased patients, contained within the dataset.
An example of data contained in the ECDC dataset.
| Date |
|
|
|
|
|
| Continent | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| … | ||||||||
| 25/07/2020 | 157 | 1 | China | CN | CHN |
| Asia | 0.081323 |
| 24/07/2020 | 139 | 1 | China | CN | CHN |
| Asia | 0.073163 |
| 23/07/2020 | 135 | 0 | China | CN | CHN |
| Asia | 0.066677 |
| 22/07/2020 | 74 | 2 | China | CN | CHN |
| Asia | 0.059563 |
| 21/07/2020 | 84 | 0 | China | CN | CHN |
| Asia | 0.055866 |
| 20/07/2020 | 130 | 0 | China | CN | CHN |
| Asia | 0.051751 |
| 19/07/2020 | 80 | 1 | China | CN | CHN |
| Asia | 0.043661 |
| … | ||||||||
Figure 7Time-series plot of the data in the ECDC dataset, for confirmed patients, contained within the dataset.
Figure 8Time-series plot of the data in the ECDC dataset, for deceased patients, contained within the dataset.
Result comparison for feed-forward ANN-based algorithms.
| Paper | Method | Metric | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | MLP |
| Confirmed | 0.94 | |
| Deceased | 0.986 | ||||
| Recovered | 0.781 | ||||
| [ | ANN | MSE | 557,422 | ||
| MAE | 23.85 | ||||
| [ | ANN | Getis-Ord Gi* | |||
| [ | MLP (ISA-MFN) |
| USA | 13,131.18 | |
| Italy | 2757.33 | ||||
| Spain | 5748.39 | ||||
| RMSE | USA | 0.92 | |||
| Italy | 0.99 | ||||
| Spain | 0.96 | ||||
| [ | ANN |
| 0.99 | ||
| MSE |
| ||||
| [ | MLP |
| 7.75 | ||
| RMSE | 10.41 | ||||
| MAE | 0.99 | ||||
| [ | MLP | MSE | West Java | Active | 36.29 |
| Confirmed | 29.05 | ||||
| Recovered | 2.19 | ||||
| Deceased | 0.06 | ||||
| Jakarta | Active | 3.21 | |||
| Confirmed | 19.78 | ||||
| Recovered | 39.24 | ||||
| Deceased | 0.72 | ||||
| [ | ANN |
| 0.76 | ||
| [ | MLP | Accuracy | 0.87 | ||
|
| 0.92 | ||||
| Precision | 0.87 | ||||
| Recall | 0.99 | ||||
| AUC | 0.63 | ||||
| [ | ANN Ensemble | RMSE | Confirmed | 1554.03 | |
| Deceased | 162.16 | ||||
| MSE | Confirmed | 2,415,010.11 | |||
| Deceased | 26,297.27 | ||||
| [ | ANN | MAE | 0.0144 | ||
| MAPE | 13.29% | ||||
| [ | MLP | MRE | 4.20% | ||
Result comparison for RNN-based algorithms.
| Paper | Method | Metric | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | RNN | RMSLE | 0.5 | ||
| [ | LSTM | MRE | Brazil | 3.66% | |
| Singapore | 2.39% | ||||
| New Zeland | 0.74% | ||||
| Taiwan | 0.40% | ||||
| Finland | 10.7% | ||||
| [ | LSTM | MSE | Saudi Arabia | Confirmed | 0.8111 |
| Deceased | 0.0914 | ||||
| Italy | Confirmed | 0.1426 | |||
| Deceased | 0.09302 | ||||
| Spain | Confirmed | 0.0572 | |||
| Deceased | 0.01355 | ||||
| RMSE | Saudi Arabia | Confirmed | 0.9006 | ||
| Deceased | 0.3024 | ||||
| Italy | Confirmed | 0.3777 | |||
| Deceased | 0.0196 | ||||
| Spain | Confirmed | 0.2296 | |||
| Deceased | 0.1164 | ||||
| Mean Error | Saudi Arabia | Confirmed | 0.8811 | ||
| Deceased | 0.1290 | ||||
| Italy | Confirmed | 0.3585 | |||
| Deceased | 0.2991 | ||||
| Spain | Confirmed | 0.1949 | |||
| Deceased | 0.0364 | ||||
| [ | LSTM | RMSE | Saudi Arabia | 111.52 | |
| Sweden | 1756.58 | ||||
| Argentina | 2795.88 | ||||
| Indonesia | 3691.23 | ||||
| [ | LSTM | RMSE | 601.2 | ||
| [ | LSTM | RMSE | 27.187 | ||
| [ | LSTM | Normalized RMSE | 0.01 | ||
| [ | LSTM | RMSE | Confirmed | 1103.5 | |
| Recovered | 329 | ||||
| Deceased | 101.9 | ||||
| [ | LSTM | RMSE | 947.7027 | ||
| [ | LSTM | RMSE | 63.88 | ||
| [ | LSTM | RMSE | 34.83 | ||
| 45.70 | |||||
| Accuracy | 93.4 | ||||
| 92.6 | |||||
| [ | LSTM | RMSE | 6 neurons | 2994.85 | |
| 1 neuron | 3331.93 | ||||
| [ | LSTM | AUC | 0.625 | ||
|
| 0.9189 | ||||
| [ | LSTM | MAPE | Weekly | 8% | |
| Daily | 3% | ||||
Result comparison for EC-based algorithms.
| Paper | Method | Metrics | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | GP |
| Confirmed | 0.9999 |
| Deaths | 0.9997 | |||
| RMSE | Confirmed | 5.5574 | ||
| Deceased | 90.1863 | |||
| [ | GP |
| Confirmed | 0.9999 |
| Deceased | 0.9994 | |||
| [ | GA | MAE | 45.079011 | |
| [ | GA | MRE | 5% | |
| [ | GA | Mean Aboslute Deviation | 3385.65 | |
| MSE | 20,050,015.56 | |||
| RMSE | 4477.72 | |||
| MAPE | 9.68 | |||
| [ | GP |
| Confirmed | 0.999 |
| Recovered | 0.998 | |||
| Deceased | 0.999 | |||
| [ | GP |
| Active for entire USA | 0.9933 |
| [ | MAPE | 0.114 | ||
Figure 9The number of uses of individual algorithms among the reviewed papers. Similar algorithms have been grouped. Abbreviation “R” signifies Regression, with other abbreviations given in the text. Single-use algorithms have been grouped into “Other”.
Figure 10The number of metric uses within the reviewed papers. Abbreviations have been given in the text. Single-use metrics have been grouped into the “Other” category.
Figure 11Taxonomy of the AI research in the field of COVID-19, with the best results for the reviewed research subjects given inside the taxonomy graph.