↓ Skip to main content

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

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Outbreak definition by change point analysis: a tool for public health decision?
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0271-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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. 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). 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 20 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Mathematics 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 25 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 June 2020.
All research outputs
#18,447,592
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,574
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,663
of 300,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.