Abstract
We compared the accuracy of the machine learning classifier algorithms: Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, Decision Tree, and Artificial Neural Network to predict zoonoses using the Random Forest extracted features and the serology data for seven different zoonotic diseases as the targets. We identified Random Forest and Naïve Bayes as having the best performance overall. The Random Forest models above did well using Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Area Under the Curve (AOC) and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) performance measures in identifying the positive cases for each of the diseases which is imperative when it comes to being able to identify the disease and then use this information to implement prevention and medical aid to specific areas and people where it is most needed. It also does well in predicting the negative values which is important to ensure the negatives are not false negatives.
Naïve Bayes was found to be the best choice for accuracy and performance. NB works well because it treats each feature as independent and thus, any change in one feature will not affect the other in the NB model. Decision Tree could not capture the data and thus, underfit during the first initial modeling and after hyper tuning. Artificial Neural Network overfit the model by capturing all the data including noise in the initial model, but underfit after hyper tuning. Both Decision Tree and Artificial Neural Network classifier algorithms are not recommended as classifiers for this dataset.
Statements There are no conflicts of interest in this work.
All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
All experimental protocols were approved by the Forestry Administration of Cambodia.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s) at the beginning of the survey.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Harrisburg University of Sciences and Technology approved the study which was part of my dissertation.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
