Use of backpropagation and differential evolution algorithms to training MLPs

Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are often used (trained) to find a general solution in problems where a pattern needs to be extracted, such as data classification. Feedforward (FFNN) is one of the ANN architectures and multilayer perceptron (MLP) is a type of FFNN. Based on gradient descent, backpropagation (BP) is one of the most used algorithms for MLP training. Evolutionary algorithms can be also used to train MLPs, including Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm. In this paper, BP and DE are used to train MLPs and they are both compared in four different approaches: (a) backpropagation, (b) DE with fixed parameter values, (c) DE with adaptive parameter values and (d) a hybrid alternative using both DE+BP algorithms. © 2013 IEEE

Scoping review on vector-borne diseases in urban areas : transmission dynamics, vectorial capacity and co-infection

BACKGROUND: Transmission dynamics, vectorial capacity, and co-infections have substantial impacts on vector-borne diseases (VBDs) affecting urban and suburban populations. Reviewing key factors can provide insight into priority research areas and offer suggestions for potential interventions. MAIN BODY: Through a scoping review, we identify knowledge gaps on transmission dynamics, vectorial capacity, and co-infections regarding VBDs in urban areas. Peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2000 and 2016 was searched. We screened abstracts and full texts to select studies. Using an extraction grid, we retrieved general data, results, lessons learned and recommendations, future research avenues, and practice implications. We classified studies by VBD and country/continent and identified relevant knowledge gaps. Of 773 articles selected for full-text screening, 50 were included in the review: 23 based on research in the Americas, 15 in Asia, 10 in Africa, and one each in Europe and Australia. The largest body of evidence concerning VBD epidemiology in urban areas concerned dengue and malaria. Other arboviruses covered included chikungunya and West Nile virus, other parasitic diseases such as leishmaniasis and trypanosomiasis, and bacterial rickettsiosis and plague. Most articles retrieved in our review combined transmission dynamics and vectorial capacity; only two combined transmission dynamics and co-infection. The review identified significant knowledge gaps on the role of asymptomatic individuals, the effects of co-infection and other host factors, and the impacts of climatic, environmental, and socioeconomic factors on VBD transmission in urban areas. Limitations included the trade-off from narrowing the search strategy (missing out on classical modelling studies), a lack of studies on co-infections, most studies being only descriptive, and few offering concrete public health recommendations. More research is needed on transmission risk in homes and workplaces, given increasingly dynamic and mobile populations. The lack of studies on co-infection hampers monitoring of infections transmitted by the same vector. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthening VBD surveillance and control, particularly in asymptomatic cases and mobile populations, as well as using early warning tools to predict increasing transmission, were key strategies identified for public health policy and practice

Does the evidence about health risks associated with nitrate ingestion warrant an increase of the nitrate standard for drinking water?

Several authors have suggested that it is safe to raise the health standard for nitrate in drinking water, and save money on measures associated with nitrate pollution of drinking water resources. The major argument has been that the epidemiologic evidence for acute and chronic health effects related to drinking water nitrate at concentrations near the health standard is inconclusive. With respect to the chronic effects, the argument was motivated by the absence of evidence for adverse health effects related to ingestion of nitrate from dietary sources. An interdisciplinary discussion of these arguments led to three important observations. First, there have been only a few well-designed epidemiologic studies that evaluated ingestion of nitrate in drinking water and risk of specific cancers or adverse reproductive outcomes among potentially susceptible subgroups likely to have elevated endogenous nitrosation. Positive associations have been observed for some but not all health outcomes evaluated. Second, the epidemiologic studies of cancer do not support an association between ingestion of dietary nitrate (vegetables) and an increased risk of cancer, because intake of dietary nitrate is associated with intake of antioxidants and other beneficial phytochemicals. Third, 2–3 % of the population in Western Europe and the US could be exposed to nitrate levels in drinking water exceeding the WHO standard of 50 mg/l nitrate, particularly those living in rural areas. The health losses due to this exposure cannot be estimated. Therefore, we conclude that it is not possible to weigh the costs and benefits from changing the nitrate standard for drinking water and groundwater resources by considering the potential consequences for human health and by considering the potential savings due to reduced costs for nitrate removal and prevention of nitrate pollution