ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Comparative effectiveness analysis of univariate time-series forecasting models for disease mortality rates in the global burden of disease database: a case study of global hypertensive heart disease among women of childbearing age.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burden and trends of chronic kidney disease due to type 2 diabetes mellitus in China and G20 countries, 1990-2023: a comparative analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Trends and spatial distribution of pulmonary tuberculosis in China: a surveillance study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Temporal Trends and Model-Based Projections of Female-Specific Cancer Burden Among East Asian Women Aged 55 Years and Older: A GBD 2023 Analysis.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The mortality rate of hypertensive heart disease (HHD) among women of childbearing age (WCBA) worldwide is continuously increasing. Accurate prediction of the mortality rate of HHD among WCBA globally plays a crucial role in evaluating the effectiveness of intervention measures and predicting future disease trends. To date, there has been few systematic comparative evaluations of prediction methods for epidemiological indicators in the field of disease burden. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare the performance of univariate prediction models in the global burden of disease (GBD) database. Method: Global mortality data on HHD in WCBA (1990-2021) were split into training and validation sets. We implemented and compared four models: AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), Prophet, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM). Model performance was assessed using Mean Squared Error (MSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and the Diebold-Mariano (DM) test for statistical significance. Results: The LSTM model demonstrated superior predictive accuracy on the validation set, with the lowest error rates across all metrics (MSE: 0.00021; MAE: 0.00872; MAPE: 0.662%). All the other models demonstrated statistically significant superiority over ARIMA (MSE: 0.03645; DM test Conclusion: This study provided the first systematic comparison of univariate forecasting models for HHD mortality in WCBA using GBD data. A key finding was that both LSTM and Prophet performed exceptionally well statistically, LSTM achieves superior predictive capability via its gated mechanisms and state memory, while Prophet enhances interpretability through its additive model structure. This study therefore provides practical guidance for health authorities to select appropriate models based on actual needs to support improved resource planning for HHD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.