Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, JSS Academy of Technical Education, Bengaluru, India
© 2021 Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Funding
None.
Availability of Data
Data for literature review was taken from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. For other data, these may be requested through the corresponding author.
Authors’ Contributions
Conception: all authors; Design: all authors; Supervision: RS, DRS; Literature review: SMS, NSK, PPM; Writing–original draft: all authors; Writing–review & editing: all authors.
This data is as of July 29, 2021 from Worldmeter (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/).
Database | Initial | Screened | Accepted |
---|---|---|---|
Google Scholar | 910 | 33 | 21 |
Scopus | 210 | 19 | 4 |
Web of Science | 76 | 10 | 5 |
Total | 1,196 | 62 | 30 |
Duplicates | 47 | 0 | 0 |
Total selected | 1,149 | 62 | 30 |
No. | Study | Objective | Type of model | Result | Quality assessment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Yang et al., 2020 [28] | To forecast COVID-19 patterns in China using a SEIR and AI model | SEIR model and AI model | · The model was effective in forecasting COVID-19 cases. | 95% CI |
2 | Liang et al., 2020 [29] | To forecast the risk of critical illness at hospital admission and identify survival of COVID-19 patients | Statistical software: LASSO, logistic regression model | · The score gives an estimation of the probability of critical disease progression for a hospitalized patient with COVID-19. | AUC (accuracy) was 0.88, 95% CI. |
3 | Yan et al., 2020 [30] | Relieving clinical burden and potentially reducing the mortality rate of COVID-19 | Machine learning tool: XGBoost | To predict patients with higher risk and potentially reduce mortality rate | Overall accuracy was 0.90 |
· Survival prediction accuracy was 100%. | |||||
· Mortality forecast accuracy was 81%. | |||||
4 | Gong et al., 2020 [31] | To predict the early detection of cases at high risk for progression to serious COVID-19 | Statistical analysis | · Results helped in COVID-19 patient identification for effective management. | Training cohort: |
· AUC was 0.912, 95% CI. | |||||
Validation cohort: | |||||
· AUC was 0.853, 95% CI. | |||||
5 | Chatterjee et al., 2020 [32] | To develop a stochastic mathematical model to predict COVID-19 cases | SEIR | · To help in healthcare preparedness and in allocations of resources. | R0 was 2.28, growth rate of the epidemic in India was 1.15. |
· The model suggested that herd immunity may be achieved when 55% to 65% of the population is infected. | |||||
6 | Hu et al., 2020 [12] | To predict confirmed COVID-19 cases and group cities into clusters according to transmission pattern | AI | · AI-based prediction showed significant accuracy and may act as a powerful tool for helping healthcare planning and policymaking. | Average errors: |
• 6-Step (1.64%) | |||||
• 7-Step (2.27%) | |||||
• 8-Step (2.14%) | |||||
• 9-Step (2.08%) | |||||
• 10-Step (0.73%) | |||||
7 | Tomar & Gupta, 2020 [33] | To predict new COVID-19 cases using LSTM based techniques | LSTM | · Prediction corresponded to the original information with a reasonable CI. | ±5% CI |
8 | IHME COVID-19 Health Service Utilization Forecasting Team & Murray, 2020 [34] | To predict deaths and requirements of total beds for hospitals due to COVID-19 | Statistical model | · The model estimated that the number of COVID-19 deaths would range from 81,114 to 162,106 over the next 4 mo. | Not available. |
9 | Chimmula & Zhang, 2020 [35] | To track COVID-19 cases and to help government and policymakers prepare | LSTM, R0 method | · ARIMA | RMSE (45.70) |
10 | Pandey et al., 2020 [36] | To create a predictive model to assess the need for clinical treatment for patients | Machine learning models: SEIR, regression model | · Predictions will help check supply and medical assistance and help policymakers prepare. | RMSLE: |
· SEIR model was 1.52. | |||||
· regression model was 1.75. | |||||
R0 between the 2 models was 2.02. | |||||
11 | Jehi et al., 2020 [37] | To develop a model for risk prediction for patients testing COVID-19 positive | Statistical prediction model: chi-square test | · Predictions could help direct healthcare preparedness. | C-statistic: |
· Development cohort was 0.863. | |||||
· Validation cohort was 0.840. | |||||
12 | Ardabili et al., 2020 [38] | To forecast the outbreak of COVID-19 using machine learning soft computing | Machine learning: logistic model. | Correlation coefficient | RMSE |
· Italy (0.997) | · Italy (3358.1) | ||||
· China (0.994) | · China (2524.44) | ||||
· Iran (0.997) | · Iran (628.62) | ||||
· USA (0.999) | · USA (350.33) | ||||
· Germany (0.997) | · Germany (555.32) | ||||
13 | Sujath et al., 2020 [39] | To forecast COVID-19 pandemic using machine learning | Machine learning: LR, MLP | · 95% CI with LR and MLP | 95% CI |
14 | Qi et al., 2020 [40] | To predict the hospital stay of COVID-19 patients | Machine learning: logistic regression, RF | · Predictions exhibited feasibility and accuracy for hospital stay for patients with pneumonia associated with COVID-19 infection. | LR model: |
· Sensitivity was 1.0. | |||||
· Specificity was 0.89. | |||||
RF model | |||||
· Sensitivity was 0.75. | |||||
· Specificity was 1.0. | |||||
15 | Ghosal et al., 2020 [41] | To forecast the number of deaths due to COVID-19 in India | Multiple regression and LR, auto-regression technique | · The estimated mortality rate (n) at the end of the 5th and 6th weeks was 211 and 467. | Multiple R was 0.9903. |
R squared was 0.9807. | |||||
Adjusted R squared was 0.9700. | |||||
Standard error was 234.1358. | |||||
16 | Hoertel et al., 2020 [42] | To develop a prediction model to identify patients needing professional care | Statistical analysis: Kaplan-Meier method, R Foundation for statistical computing | · Cox model predicted with a high accuracy (p<0.05). | · AUC was 0.97. |
· Overall C-statistic was 0.963 (95% CI, 0.936-0.99). | |||||
17 | Arora et al., 2020 [43] | To forecast the number of COVID-19 positive cases in 32 states and union territories of India using deep learning-based models | Deep learning: LSTM, RNN | · Model was highly accurate for short-term predictions (1–3 days) ahead. |
· MAPE range <3% · Weekly forecast 4%–8% |
18 | Salgotra et al., 2020 [44] | To forecast COVID-19 outbreaks in India and use time series study and model on CC and DC in 3 states of India, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Delhi | GEP model | · The model was highly effective in forecasting both reported cases and deaths around India. | · Lowest R value: 0.9881, DC in Delhi, |
· highest value was 0.9999, RC in India | |||||
19 | Dutta and Bandyopadhyay, 2020 [45] | To validate the predicted outcome of COVID-19 cases using machine learning | LSTM, GRU | Accuracy level | RMSE |
· Confirmed cases: 87% | · Confirmed cases: 30.15% | ||||
· Negative cases: 67.8% | · Negative cases: 49.4% | ||||
· Deceased cases: 62% | · Deceased cases: 4.16% | ||||
· Released cases: 40.5% | · Released cases: 13.72% | ||||
20 | Zhao et al., 2020 [46] | To develop risk ratings based on clinical categories and to forecast COVID-19 ICU admission and mortality | Logistic regression: multivariable regression model | · Predictions will significantly assist the flow of COVID-19 patients and distribute resources accordingly. | · ICU admission: AUC was 0.74, 95% CI. |
· Predicting mortality: AUC was 0.82, 95% CI. | |||||
21 | Hernandez-Matamoros et al., 2020 [47] | To predict COVID-19 behaviors in order to make future plans and hence to forecast the progress of the virus | ARIMA | · The model was able to predict the behavior of spread of COVID-19 infection. | RMSE average of 144.81. |
22 | Alazab et al., 2020 [48] | To predict COVID-19 cases across the world using an AI-based technique | PA, ARIMA, LSTM | · PA delivered the best performance. | Accuracy: |
· The model predicted COVID-19 cases and achieved an F-measure of 99%. | · Australia was 94.80%. | ||||
· Jordan was 88.43%. | |||||
23 | Parbat and Chakraborty, 2020 [49] | To predict the total number of deaths, recovered cases, cumulative number of confirmed cases, and number of daily cases | Vector regression model | The model: | RMSE: |
· Functioned well in fitting the total cases | · Total deaths: 0.092142 | ||||
· Poor fit for the daily number of cases | · Total recovered: 0.174036 | ||||
· Daily confirmed: 0.330830 | |||||
· Daily deaths: 0.361727 | |||||
24 | Zhao et al., 2020 [50] | To predict COVID-19 confirmed cases using 6 rolling grey Verhulst models | Rolling Grey Verhulst model | · Predictions exhibited good accuracy. | MAPE: training stage |
· Six models predicted S-shaped change characteristics consistently. | · Max (4.74%) | ||||
· Min (1.80%) | |||||
Testing stage | |||||
· Max (4.72%) | |||||
· Min (1.65%) | |||||
25 | Achterberg et al., 2020 [51] | To evaluate a diverse range of forecast algorithms for COVID-19 | Network-based forecasting | · The algorithm performed well in predicting COVID-19 cases and was superior to any other prediction algorithm. | NIPA |
· Hubei was 0.122. | |||||
· The Netherlands was 0.038. | |||||
26 | Fernandez et al., 2021 [52] | To develop a forecasting algorithm to consider patient survival | Logistic regression: multivariate logistic regression | · Patients that would be able to survive were classified by age, CRP, platelet count, and number of lung consolidations. | AUC was 0.8129. |
GOF: Hosmer and Lemeshow test, p=0.018; 95% CI (0.773–0.853, p<0.001) | |||||
27 | Li et al., 2020 [53] | To develop a prediction model for identifying patients at an increased risk of COVID-19 death | Machine learning: autoencoder model, logistic regression, SVM, RF | · The model exhibited specificity and accuracy above 0.9. | Logistic regression, SVM, RF |
· Sensitivities below 0.4. | |||||
· Autoencoder scores above a sensitivity value of 0.4. | |||||
28 | Siwiak et al., 2020 [54] | To develop a global model for COVID-19 in terms of the number of infected cases | GLEAM | · Presented a percentage difference over time between the number of reported, confirmed cases and CI limits for different modeled predictions. | 95% CI |
29 | Bhandari et al., 2020 [55] | To predict the progression of COVID-19 in India using ARIMA | ARIMA | · The COVID-19 forecast helps the government and policy makers to optimize resources and make decisions. | 95% CI |
30 | Muhammad et al., 2021 [56] | To forecast COVID-19 infection using machine learning | Machine learning: logistic regression, decision tree, support vector machine, naive Bayes, and artificial neutral network | · Decision tree model accuracy was 94.99%. | RMSE: LMST (27.187) |
· Support vector machine model sensitivity was 93.34%. | LR (7.562) | ||||
· Naive Bayes model has a specificity of 94.30%. |
COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; SEIR, susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed; AI, artificial intelligence; CI, confidence interval; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; AUC, area under the curve; XGBoost, eXtreme gradient boosting; LSTM, long short-term memory; ARIMA, autoregressive integrated moving average; RMSE, root mean square error; RMSLE, root mean square logarithmic error; LR, linear regression; MLP, multilayer perceptron; RF, random forest; RNN, recurrent neural network; MAPE, mean absolute percentage error; CC, confirmed case; DC, death case; GEP, genetic evolutionary programming; RC, reported case; GRU, gated recurrent unit; ICU, intensive care unit; PA, prophet algorithm; NIPA, network inference-based prediction algorithm; CRP, C-reactive protein; GOF, goodness of fit; SVM, support vector machine; GLEAM, global epidemic and mobility framework.
No. | Study | Year | Country | Citation (January 2, 2021) | Model |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Yang et al. [28] | 2020 | China | 467 | SEIR and AI model |
2 | Liang et al. [29] | 2020 | China | 327 | Statistical software |
3 | Yan et al. [30] | 2020 | China | 194 | Machine learning |
4 | Gong et al. [31] | 2020 | China | 134 | Statistical analysis |
5 | Chatterjee et al. [32] | 2020 | India | 131 | SEIR |
6 | Hu et al. [12] | 2020 | China | 130 | Artificial intelligence |
7 | Tomar & Gupta [33] | 2020 | India | 129 | LSTM |
8 | IHME COVID-19 Health Service Utilization Forecasting Team & Murray [34] | 2020 | USA | 119 | Statistical model |
9 | Chimmula & Zhang [35] | 2020 | Canada | 99 | LSTM |
10 | Pandey et al. [36] | 2020 | India | 57 | Machine learning |
11 | Jehi et al. [37] | 2020 | USA | 45 | Statistical analysis |
12 | Ardabili et al. [38] | 2020 | Worldwide scenario | 41 | Machine learning |
13 | Sujath et al. [39] | 2020 | India | 41 | Machine learning |
14 | Qi et al. [40] | 2020 | Worldwide scenario | 41 | Machine learning |
15 | Ghosal et al. [41] | 2020 | India | 39 | Regression model |
16 | Hoertel et al. [42] | 2020 | France | 37 | Statistical analysis |
17 | Arora et al. [43] | 2020 | India | 34 | LSTM, RNN |
18 | Salgotra et al. [44] | 2020 | India | 34 | GEP model |
19 | Dutta & Bandyopadhyay [45] | 2020 | India | 33 | LSTM, GRU |
20 | Zhao et al. [46] | 2020 | China | 13 | Logistic regression |
21 | Hernandez-Matamoros et al. [47] | 2020 | Chile | 11 | ARIMA |
22 | Alazab et al. [48] | 2020 | Jordon | 9 | PA, ARIMA, LSTM |
23 | Parbat & Chakraborty [49] | 2020 | India | 9 | Regression model |
24 | Zhao et al. [50] | 2020 | China | 6 | Grey Verhulst |
25 | Achterberg et al. [51] | 2020 | China | 2 | Network-based forecasting |
26 | Fernandez et al. [52] | 2021 | UK | 2 | AI |
27 | Li et al. [53] | 2020 | Worldwide scenario | 1 | GLEM |
28 | Siwiak et al. [54] | 2020 | India | 1 | ARIMA |
29 | Bhandari et al. [55] | 2020 | UK | - | Logistic regression |
30 | Muhammad et al. [56] | 2021 | Mexico | - | Machine learning |
SEIR, susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed; AI, artificial intelligence; LSTM, long short-term memory; RNN, recurrent neural network; GEP, genetic evolutionary programming; GRU, gated recurrent unit; ARIMA, autoregressive integrated moving average; PA, prophet algorithm; GLEM, global epidemic and mobility.
Country | Cases reported | Death | Recovered case |
---|---|---|---|
United States | 35,689,184 | 629,072 | 29,652,042 |
India | 31,619,573 | 423,965 | 30,781,263 |
Brazil | 19,880,273 | 555,512 | 18,595,380 |
Russia | 6,265,873 | 158,563 | 5,608,619 |
France | 6,103,548 | 111,824 | 5,696,559 |
United Kingdom | 5,856,528 | 129,654 | 4,508,650 |
Turkey | 5,704,713 | 51,253 | 5,449,253 |
Argentina | 4,919,408 | 105,586 | 4,557,037 |
Colombia | 4,776,291 | 120,432 | 4,567,701 |
Spain | 4,447,044 | 81,486 | 3,711,200 |
Criteria | Inclusion | Exclusion |
---|---|---|
Document type | Published documents | Under review, unpublished or upcoming documents |
Domain | Prediction models of COVID-19 | Other than prediction models of COVID-19 |
Language | English | Other than English |
Database | Initial | Screened | Accepted |
---|---|---|---|
Google Scholar | 910 | 33 | 21 |
Scopus | 210 | 19 | 4 |
Web of Science | 76 | 10 | 5 |
Total | 1,196 | 62 | 30 |
Duplicates | 47 | 0 | 0 |
Total selected | 1,149 | 62 | 30 |
No. | Study | Objective | Type of model | Result | Quality assessment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Yang et al., 2020 [28] | To forecast COVID-19 patterns in China using a SEIR and AI model | SEIR model and AI model | · The model was effective in forecasting COVID-19 cases. | 95% CI |
2 | Liang et al., 2020 [29] | To forecast the risk of critical illness at hospital admission and identify survival of COVID-19 patients | Statistical software: LASSO, logistic regression model | · The score gives an estimation of the probability of critical disease progression for a hospitalized patient with COVID-19. | AUC (accuracy) was 0.88, 95% CI. |
3 | Yan et al., 2020 [30] | Relieving clinical burden and potentially reducing the mortality rate of COVID-19 | Machine learning tool: XGBoost | To predict patients with higher risk and potentially reduce mortality rate | Overall accuracy was 0.90 |
· Survival prediction accuracy was 100%. | |||||
· Mortality forecast accuracy was 81%. | |||||
4 | Gong et al., 2020 [31] | To predict the early detection of cases at high risk for progression to serious COVID-19 | Statistical analysis | · Results helped in COVID-19 patient identification for effective management. | Training cohort: |
· AUC was 0.912, 95% CI. | |||||
Validation cohort: | |||||
· AUC was 0.853, 95% CI. | |||||
5 | Chatterjee et al., 2020 [32] | To develop a stochastic mathematical model to predict COVID-19 cases | SEIR | · To help in healthcare preparedness and in allocations of resources. | R0 was 2.28, growth rate of the epidemic in India was 1.15. |
· The model suggested that herd immunity may be achieved when 55% to 65% of the population is infected. | |||||
6 | Hu et al., 2020 [12] | To predict confirmed COVID-19 cases and group cities into clusters according to transmission pattern | AI | · AI-based prediction showed significant accuracy and may act as a powerful tool for helping healthcare planning and policymaking. | Average errors: |
• 6-Step (1.64%) | |||||
• 7-Step (2.27%) | |||||
• 8-Step (2.14%) | |||||
• 9-Step (2.08%) | |||||
• 10-Step (0.73%) | |||||
7 | Tomar & Gupta, 2020 [33] | To predict new COVID-19 cases using LSTM based techniques | LSTM | · Prediction corresponded to the original information with a reasonable CI. | ±5% CI |
8 | IHME COVID-19 Health Service Utilization Forecasting Team & Murray, 2020 [34] | To predict deaths and requirements of total beds for hospitals due to COVID-19 | Statistical model | · The model estimated that the number of COVID-19 deaths would range from 81,114 to 162,106 over the next 4 mo. | Not available. |
9 | Chimmula & Zhang, 2020 [35] | To track COVID-19 cases and to help government and policymakers prepare | LSTM, R0 method | · ARIMA | RMSE (45.70) |
10 | Pandey et al., 2020 [36] | To create a predictive model to assess the need for clinical treatment for patients | Machine learning models: SEIR, regression model | · Predictions will help check supply and medical assistance and help policymakers prepare. | RMSLE: |
· SEIR model was 1.52. | |||||
· regression model was 1.75. | |||||
R0 between the 2 models was 2.02. | |||||
11 | Jehi et al., 2020 [37] | To develop a model for risk prediction for patients testing COVID-19 positive | Statistical prediction model: chi-square test | · Predictions could help direct healthcare preparedness. | C-statistic: |
· Development cohort was 0.863. | |||||
· Validation cohort was 0.840. | |||||
12 | Ardabili et al., 2020 [38] | To forecast the outbreak of COVID-19 using machine learning soft computing | Machine learning: logistic model. | Correlation coefficient | RMSE |
· Italy (0.997) | · Italy (3358.1) | ||||
· China (0.994) | · China (2524.44) | ||||
· Iran (0.997) | · Iran (628.62) | ||||
· USA (0.999) | · USA (350.33) | ||||
· Germany (0.997) | · Germany (555.32) | ||||
13 | Sujath et al., 2020 [39] | To forecast COVID-19 pandemic using machine learning | Machine learning: LR, MLP | · 95% CI with LR and MLP | 95% CI |
14 | Qi et al., 2020 [40] | To predict the hospital stay of COVID-19 patients | Machine learning: logistic regression, RF | · Predictions exhibited feasibility and accuracy for hospital stay for patients with pneumonia associated with COVID-19 infection. | LR model: |
· Sensitivity was 1.0. | |||||
· Specificity was 0.89. | |||||
RF model | |||||
· Sensitivity was 0.75. | |||||
· Specificity was 1.0. | |||||
15 | Ghosal et al., 2020 [41] | To forecast the number of deaths due to COVID-19 in India | Multiple regression and LR, auto-regression technique | · The estimated mortality rate (n) at the end of the 5th and 6th weeks was 211 and 467. | Multiple R was 0.9903. |
R squared was 0.9807. | |||||
Adjusted R squared was 0.9700. | |||||
Standard error was 234.1358. | |||||
16 | Hoertel et al., 2020 [42] | To develop a prediction model to identify patients needing professional care | Statistical analysis: Kaplan-Meier method, R Foundation for statistical computing | · Cox model predicted with a high accuracy (p<0.05). | · AUC was 0.97. |
· Overall C-statistic was 0.963 (95% CI, 0.936-0.99). | |||||
17 | Arora et al., 2020 [43] | To forecast the number of COVID-19 positive cases in 32 states and union territories of India using deep learning-based models | Deep learning: LSTM, RNN | · Model was highly accurate for short-term predictions (1–3 days) ahead. | · MAPE range <3% · Weekly forecast 4%–8% |
18 | Salgotra et al., 2020 [44] | To forecast COVID-19 outbreaks in India and use time series study and model on CC and DC in 3 states of India, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Delhi | GEP model | · The model was highly effective in forecasting both reported cases and deaths around India. | · Lowest R value: 0.9881, DC in Delhi, |
· highest value was 0.9999, RC in India | |||||
19 | Dutta and Bandyopadhyay, 2020 [45] | To validate the predicted outcome of COVID-19 cases using machine learning | LSTM, GRU | Accuracy level | RMSE |
· Confirmed cases: 87% | · Confirmed cases: 30.15% | ||||
· Negative cases: 67.8% | · Negative cases: 49.4% | ||||
· Deceased cases: 62% | · Deceased cases: 4.16% | ||||
· Released cases: 40.5% | · Released cases: 13.72% | ||||
20 | Zhao et al., 2020 [46] | To develop risk ratings based on clinical categories and to forecast COVID-19 ICU admission and mortality | Logistic regression: multivariable regression model | · Predictions will significantly assist the flow of COVID-19 patients and distribute resources accordingly. | · ICU admission: AUC was 0.74, 95% CI. |
· Predicting mortality: AUC was 0.82, 95% CI. | |||||
21 | Hernandez-Matamoros et al., 2020 [47] | To predict COVID-19 behaviors in order to make future plans and hence to forecast the progress of the virus | ARIMA | · The model was able to predict the behavior of spread of COVID-19 infection. | RMSE average of 144.81. |
22 | Alazab et al., 2020 [48] | To predict COVID-19 cases across the world using an AI-based technique | PA, ARIMA, LSTM | · PA delivered the best performance. | Accuracy: |
· The model predicted COVID-19 cases and achieved an F-measure of 99%. | · Australia was 94.80%. | ||||
· Jordan was 88.43%. | |||||
23 | Parbat and Chakraborty, 2020 [49] | To predict the total number of deaths, recovered cases, cumulative number of confirmed cases, and number of daily cases | Vector regression model | The model: | RMSE: |
· Functioned well in fitting the total cases | · Total deaths: 0.092142 | ||||
· Poor fit for the daily number of cases | · Total recovered: 0.174036 | ||||
· Daily confirmed: 0.330830 | |||||
· Daily deaths: 0.361727 | |||||
24 | Zhao et al., 2020 [50] | To predict COVID-19 confirmed cases using 6 rolling grey Verhulst models | Rolling Grey Verhulst model | · Predictions exhibited good accuracy. | MAPE: training stage |
· Six models predicted S-shaped change characteristics consistently. | · Max (4.74%) | ||||
· Min (1.80%) | |||||
Testing stage | |||||
· Max (4.72%) | |||||
· Min (1.65%) | |||||
25 | Achterberg et al., 2020 [51] | To evaluate a diverse range of forecast algorithms for COVID-19 | Network-based forecasting | · The algorithm performed well in predicting COVID-19 cases and was superior to any other prediction algorithm. | NIPA |
· Hubei was 0.122. | |||||
· The Netherlands was 0.038. | |||||
26 | Fernandez et al., 2021 [52] | To develop a forecasting algorithm to consider patient survival | Logistic regression: multivariate logistic regression | · Patients that would be able to survive were classified by age, CRP, platelet count, and number of lung consolidations. | AUC was 0.8129. |
GOF: Hosmer and Lemeshow test, p=0.018; 95% CI (0.773–0.853, p<0.001) | |||||
27 | Li et al., 2020 [53] | To develop a prediction model for identifying patients at an increased risk of COVID-19 death | Machine learning: autoencoder model, logistic regression, SVM, RF | · The model exhibited specificity and accuracy above 0.9. | Logistic regression, SVM, RF |
· Sensitivities below 0.4. | |||||
· Autoencoder scores above a sensitivity value of 0.4. | |||||
28 | Siwiak et al., 2020 [54] | To develop a global model for COVID-19 in terms of the number of infected cases | GLEAM | · Presented a percentage difference over time between the number of reported, confirmed cases and CI limits for different modeled predictions. | 95% CI |
29 | Bhandari et al., 2020 [55] | To predict the progression of COVID-19 in India using ARIMA | ARIMA | · The COVID-19 forecast helps the government and policy makers to optimize resources and make decisions. | 95% CI |
30 | Muhammad et al., 2021 [56] | To forecast COVID-19 infection using machine learning | Machine learning: logistic regression, decision tree, support vector machine, naive Bayes, and artificial neutral network | · Decision tree model accuracy was 94.99%. | RMSE: LMST (27.187) |
· Support vector machine model sensitivity was 93.34%. | LR (7.562) | ||||
· Naive Bayes model has a specificity of 94.30%. |
No. | Study | Year | Country | Citation (January 2, 2021) | Model |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Yang et al. [28] | 2020 | China | 467 | SEIR and AI model |
2 | Liang et al. [29] | 2020 | China | 327 | Statistical software |
3 | Yan et al. [30] | 2020 | China | 194 | Machine learning |
4 | Gong et al. [31] | 2020 | China | 134 | Statistical analysis |
5 | Chatterjee et al. [32] | 2020 | India | 131 | SEIR |
6 | Hu et al. [12] | 2020 | China | 130 | Artificial intelligence |
7 | Tomar & Gupta [33] | 2020 | India | 129 | LSTM |
8 | IHME COVID-19 Health Service Utilization Forecasting Team & Murray [34] | 2020 | USA | 119 | Statistical model |
9 | Chimmula & Zhang [35] | 2020 | Canada | 99 | LSTM |
10 | Pandey et al. [36] | 2020 | India | 57 | Machine learning |
11 | Jehi et al. [37] | 2020 | USA | 45 | Statistical analysis |
12 | Ardabili et al. [38] | 2020 | Worldwide scenario | 41 | Machine learning |
13 | Sujath et al. [39] | 2020 | India | 41 | Machine learning |
14 | Qi et al. [40] | 2020 | Worldwide scenario | 41 | Machine learning |
15 | Ghosal et al. [41] | 2020 | India | 39 | Regression model |
16 | Hoertel et al. [42] | 2020 | France | 37 | Statistical analysis |
17 | Arora et al. [43] | 2020 | India | 34 | LSTM, RNN |
18 | Salgotra et al. [44] | 2020 | India | 34 | GEP model |
19 | Dutta & Bandyopadhyay [45] | 2020 | India | 33 | LSTM, GRU |
20 | Zhao et al. [46] | 2020 | China | 13 | Logistic regression |
21 | Hernandez-Matamoros et al. [47] | 2020 | Chile | 11 | ARIMA |
22 | Alazab et al. [48] | 2020 | Jordon | 9 | PA, ARIMA, LSTM |
23 | Parbat & Chakraborty [49] | 2020 | India | 9 | Regression model |
24 | Zhao et al. [50] | 2020 | China | 6 | Grey Verhulst |
25 | Achterberg et al. [51] | 2020 | China | 2 | Network-based forecasting |
26 | Fernandez et al. [52] | 2021 | UK | 2 | AI |
27 | Li et al. [53] | 2020 | Worldwide scenario | 1 | GLEM |
28 | Siwiak et al. [54] | 2020 | India | 1 | ARIMA |
29 | Bhandari et al. [55] | 2020 | UK | - | Logistic regression |
30 | Muhammad et al. [56] | 2021 | Mexico | - | Machine learning |
This data is as of July 29, 2021 from Worldmeter (
COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; SEIR, susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed; AI, artificial intelligence; CI, confidence interval; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; AUC, area under the curve; XGBoost, eXtreme gradient boosting; LSTM, long short-term memory; ARIMA, autoregressive integrated moving average; RMSE, root mean square error; RMSLE, root mean square logarithmic error; LR, linear regression; MLP, multilayer perceptron; RF, random forest; RNN, recurrent neural network; MAPE, mean absolute percentage error; CC, confirmed case; DC, death case; GEP, genetic evolutionary programming; RC, reported case; GRU, gated recurrent unit; ICU, intensive care unit; PA, prophet algorithm; NIPA, network inference-based prediction algorithm; CRP, C-reactive protein; GOF, goodness of fit; SVM, support vector machine; GLEAM, global epidemic and mobility framework.
SEIR, susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed; AI, artificial intelligence; LSTM, long short-term memory; RNN, recurrent neural network; GEP, genetic evolutionary programming; GRU, gated recurrent unit; ARIMA, autoregressive integrated moving average; PA, prophet algorithm; GLEM, global epidemic and mobility.