Time series prediction of under-five mortality rates for Nigeria: comparative analysis of artificial neural networks, Holt-Winters exponential smoothing and autoregressive integrated moving average models.
Artificial intelligence
Autoregressive integrated moving average
Deep learning
Forecasting
GMDH neural network
Holt-Winters exponential smoothing
Nigeria
Sustainable Development Goals
Time series
Under-five mortality rate
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 12 2020
03 12 2020
Historique:
received:
17
07
2020
accepted:
09
11
2020
entrez:
3
12
2020
pubmed:
4
12
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate forecasting model for under-five mortality rate (U5MR) is essential for policy actions and planning. While studies have used traditional time series modeling techniques (e.g., autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and Holt-Winters smoothing exponential methods), their appropriateness to predict noisy and non-linear data (such as childhood mortality) has been debated. The objective of this study was to model long-term U5MR with group method of data handling (GMDH)-type artificial neural network (ANN), and compare the forecasts with the commonly used conventional statistical methods-ARIMA regression and Holt-Winters exponential smoothing models. The historical dataset of annual U5MR in Nigeria from 1964 to 2017 was obtained from the official website of World Bank. The optimal models for each forecasting methods were used for forecasting mortality rates to 2030 (ending of Sustainable Development Goal era). The predictive performances of the three methods were evaluated, based on root mean squared errors (RMSE), root mean absolute error (RMAE) and modified Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) coefficient. Statistically significant differences in loss function between forecasts of GMDH-type ANN model compared to each of the ARIMA and Holt-Winters models were assessed with Diebold-Mariano (DM) test and Deming regression. The modified NSE coefficient was slightly lower for Holt-Winters methods (96.7%), compared to GMDH-type ANN (99.8%) and ARIMA (99.6%). The RMSE of GMDH-type ANN (0.09) was lower than ARIMA (0.23) and Holt-Winters (2.87). Similarly, RMAE was lowest for GMDH-type ANN (0.25), compared with ARIMA (0.41) and Holt-Winters (1.20). From the DM test, the mean absolute error (MAE) was significantly lower for GMDH-type ANN, compared with ARIMA (difference = 0.11, p-value = 0.0003), and Holt-Winters model (difference = 0.62, p-value< 0.001). Based on the intercepts from Deming regression, the predictions from GMDH-type ANN were more accurate (β GMDH-type neural network performed better in predicting and forecasting of under-five mortality rates for Nigeria, compared to the ARIMA and Holt-Winters models. Therefore, GMDH-type ANN might be more suitable for data with non-linear or unknown distribution, such as childhood mortality. GMDH-type ANN increases forecasting accuracy of childhood mortalities in order to inform policy actions in Nigeria.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Accurate forecasting model for under-five mortality rate (U5MR) is essential for policy actions and planning. While studies have used traditional time series modeling techniques (e.g., autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and Holt-Winters smoothing exponential methods), their appropriateness to predict noisy and non-linear data (such as childhood mortality) has been debated. The objective of this study was to model long-term U5MR with group method of data handling (GMDH)-type artificial neural network (ANN), and compare the forecasts with the commonly used conventional statistical methods-ARIMA regression and Holt-Winters exponential smoothing models.
METHODS
The historical dataset of annual U5MR in Nigeria from 1964 to 2017 was obtained from the official website of World Bank. The optimal models for each forecasting methods were used for forecasting mortality rates to 2030 (ending of Sustainable Development Goal era). The predictive performances of the three methods were evaluated, based on root mean squared errors (RMSE), root mean absolute error (RMAE) and modified Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) coefficient. Statistically significant differences in loss function between forecasts of GMDH-type ANN model compared to each of the ARIMA and Holt-Winters models were assessed with Diebold-Mariano (DM) test and Deming regression.
RESULTS
The modified NSE coefficient was slightly lower for Holt-Winters methods (96.7%), compared to GMDH-type ANN (99.8%) and ARIMA (99.6%). The RMSE of GMDH-type ANN (0.09) was lower than ARIMA (0.23) and Holt-Winters (2.87). Similarly, RMAE was lowest for GMDH-type ANN (0.25), compared with ARIMA (0.41) and Holt-Winters (1.20). From the DM test, the mean absolute error (MAE) was significantly lower for GMDH-type ANN, compared with ARIMA (difference = 0.11, p-value = 0.0003), and Holt-Winters model (difference = 0.62, p-value< 0.001). Based on the intercepts from Deming regression, the predictions from GMDH-type ANN were more accurate (β
CONCLUSIONS
GMDH-type neural network performed better in predicting and forecasting of under-five mortality rates for Nigeria, compared to the ARIMA and Holt-Winters models. Therefore, GMDH-type ANN might be more suitable for data with non-linear or unknown distribution, such as childhood mortality. GMDH-type ANN increases forecasting accuracy of childhood mortalities in order to inform policy actions in Nigeria.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33267817
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01159-9
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-01159-9
pmc: PMC7712624
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
292Références
Clin Chem. 2000 Jan;46(1):100-4
pubmed: 10620577
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Dec 19;17(1):174
pubmed: 29258510
Healthc Inform Res. 2010 Dec;16(4):253-9
pubmed: 21818444
PLoS One. 2015 May 22;10(5):e0127084
pubmed: 26001083
Iran J Public Health. 2012;41(6):86-92
pubmed: 23113198
Diabet Med. 2004 Jan;21(1):84-90
pubmed: 14706060
J Res Health Sci. 2014 Winter;14(1):81-6
pubmed: 24402856
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Dec;38(6):456-68
pubmed: 16337569
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 20;8(1):17116
pubmed: 30459331
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2013 Nov 18;46(11):993-999
pubmed: 24270906
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Dec 05;8:56
pubmed: 19061509
Front Microbiol. 2019 Mar 04;10:395
pubmed: 30886608
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1998 Sep;79(2):F129-34
pubmed: 9828740