Suppr超能文献

通过变化点分析确定疫情定义:一种用于公共卫生决策的工具?

Outbreak definition by change point analysis: a tool for public health decision?

作者信息

Texier Gaëtan, Farouh Magnim, Pellegrin Liliane, Jackson Michael L, Meynard Jean-Baptiste, Deparis Xavier, Chaudet Hervé

机构信息

Centre Pasteur du Cameroun, BP 1274, Yaoundé, Cameroon.

UMR 912/SESSTIM - INSERM/IRD/Aix-Marseille Université/Faculty of Medicine, 27, Bd Jean Moulin, 13385, Marseille, France.

出版信息

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Mar 12;16:33. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0271-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Most studies of epidemic detection focus on their start and rarely on the whole signal or the end of the epidemic. In some cases, it may be necessary to retrospectively identify outbreak signals from surveillance data. Our study aims at evaluating the ability of change point analysis (CPA) methods to locate the whole disease outbreak signal. We will compare our approach with the results coming from experts' signal inspections, considered as the gold standard method.

METHODS

We simulated 840 time series, each of which includes an epidemic-free baseline (7 options) and a type of epidemic (4 options). We tested the ability of 4 CPA methods (Max-likelihood, Kruskall-Wallis, Kernel, Bayesian) methods and expert inspection to identify the simulated outbreaks. We evaluated the performances using metrics including delay, accuracy, bias, sensitivity, specificity and Bayesian probability of correct classification (PCC).

RESULTS

A minimum of 15 h was required for experts for analyzing the 840 curves and a maximum of 25 min for a CPA algorithm. The Kernel algorithm was the most effective overall in terms of accuracy, bias and global decision (PCC = 0.904), compared to PCC of 0.848 for human expert review.

CONCLUSIONS

For the aim of retrospectively identifying the start and end of a disease outbreak, in the absence of human resources available to do this work, we recommend using the Kernel change point model. And in case of experts' availability, we also suggest to supplement the Human expertise with a CPA, especially when the signal noise difference is below 0.

摘要

背景

大多数疫情检测研究关注疫情的起始阶段,很少关注整个信号或疫情的结束阶段。在某些情况下,可能需要从监测数据中追溯识别疫情爆发信号。我们的研究旨在评估变化点分析(CPA)方法定位整个疾病爆发信号的能力。我们将把我们的方法与专家信号检查的结果进行比较,专家信号检查被视为金标准方法。

方法

我们模拟了840个时间序列,每个时间序列包括一个无疫情基线(7种选项)和一种疫情类型(4种选项)。我们测试了4种CPA方法(最大似然法、克鲁斯卡尔-沃利斯法、核密度估计法、贝叶斯法)和专家检查识别模拟疫情爆发的能力。我们使用包括延迟、准确性、偏差、敏感性、特异性和贝叶斯正确分类概率(PCC)等指标来评估性能。

结果

专家分析840条曲线最少需要15小时,而CPA算法最多需要25分钟。就准确性、偏差和总体决策而言(PCC = 0.904),核密度估计算法总体上最有效,相比之下,人类专家审查的PCC为0.848。

结论

为了追溯识别疾病爆发的起始和结束阶段,在没有人力资源进行这项工作的情况下,我们建议使用核密度估计变化点模型。如果有专家可用,我们还建议用CPA补充人类专业知识,特别是当信号噪声差异低于0时。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bd68/4788889/cf7d20665aad/12911_2016_271_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验