valley fever
Forecasting Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) in Arizona: A Graph Neural Network Approach
Sarabi, Ali, Sarabi, Arash, Yan, Hao, Sterner, Beckett, Jevtić, Petar
Coccidioidomycosis, commonly known as Valley Fever, remains a significant public health concern in endemic regions of the southwestern United States. This study develops the first graph neural network (GNN) model for forecasting Valley Fever incidence in Arizona. The model integrates surveillance case data with environmental predictors using graph structures, including soil conditions, atmospheric variables, agricultural indicators, and air quality metrics. Our approach explores correlation-based relationships among variables influencing disease transmission. The model captures critical delays in disease progression through lagged effects, enhancing its capacity to reflect complex temporal dependencies in disease ecology. Results demonstrate that the GNN architecture effectively models Valley Fever trends and provides insights into key environmental drivers of disease incidence. These findings can inform early warning systems and guide resource allocation for disease prevention efforts in high-risk areas.
ICD Codes are Insufficient to Create Datasets for Machine Learning: An Evaluation Using All of Us Data for Coccidioidomycosis and Myocardial Infarction
Whitlock, Abigail E., Leroy, Gondy, Donovan, Fariba M., Galgiani, John N.
In medicine, machine learning (ML) datasets are often built using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. As new models are being developed, there is a need for larger datasets. However, ICD codes are intended for billing. We aim to determine how suitable ICD codes are for creating datasets to train ML models. We focused on a rare and common disease using the All of Us database. First, we compared the patient cohort created using ICD codes for Valley fever (coccidioidomycosis, CM) with that identified via serological confirmation. Second, we compared two similarly created patient cohorts for myocardial infarction (MI) patients. We identified significant discrepancies between these two groups, and the patient overlap was small. The CM cohort had 811 patients in the ICD-10 group, 619 patients in the positive-serology group, and 24 with both. The MI cohort had 14,875 patients in the ICD-10 group, 23,598 in the MI laboratory-confirmed group, and 6,531 in both. Demographics, rates of disease symptoms, and other clinical data varied across our case study cohorts.