↓ Skip to main content

Predicting influenza with dynamical methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predicting influenza with dynamical methods
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0371-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda Moniz, Anna L. Buczak, Ben Baugher, Erhan Guven, Jean-Paul Chretien

Abstract

Prediction of influenza weeks in advance can be a useful tool in the management of cases and in the early recognition of pandemic influenza seasons. This study explores the prediction of influenza-like-illness incidence using both epidemiological and climate data. It uses Lorenz's well-known Method of Analogues, but with two novel improvements. Firstly, it determines internal parameters using the implicit near-neighbor distances in the data, and secondly, it employs climate data (mean dew point) to screen analogue near-neighbors and capture the hidden dynamics of disease spread. These improvements result in the ability to forecast, four weeks in advance, the total number of cases and the incidence at the peak with increased accuracy. In most locations the total number of cases per year and the incidence at the peak are forecast with less than 15 % root-mean-square (RMS) Error, and in some locations with less than 10 % RMS Error. The use of additional variables that contribute to the dynamics of influenza spread can greatly improve prediction accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Professor 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Psychology 2 14%
Mathematics 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2016.
All research outputs
#12,968,953
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#878
of 1,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,114
of 315,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#17
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,995 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.