Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30742608›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2019

Assessing the performance of real-time epidemic forecasts: A case study of Ebola in the Western Area region of Sierra Leone, 2014-15.

Sebastian Funk, Anton Camacho, Adam J Kucharski, Rachel Lowe, Rosalind M Eggo, W John Edmunds

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Emergence of the reproduction matrix in epidemic forecasting.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Sebastian FunkCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2842-3406
Anton CamachoCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0023-3985
Adam J KucharskiCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Rachel LoweCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3939-7343
Rosalind M EggoCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0362-6717
W John EdmundsCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J01432X/1Medical Research Council MR/K021524/1Medical Research Council MR/K021680/1Medical Research Council MR/S003975/1Wellcome Trust 206250/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust 210758/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-time forecasts based on mathematical models can inform critical decision-making during infectious disease outbreaks. Yet, epidemic forecasts are rarely evaluated during or after the event, and there is little guidance on the best metrics for assessment. Here, we propose an evaluation approach that disentangles different components of forecasting ability using metrics that separately assess the calibration, sharpness and bias of forecasts. This makes it possible to assess not just how close a forecast was to reality but also how well uncertainty has been quantified. We used this approach to analyse the performance of weekly forecasts we generated in real time for Western Area, Sierra Leone, during the 2013-16 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. We investigated a range of forecast model variants based on the model fits generated at the time with a semi-mechanistic model, and found that good probabilistic calibration was achievable at short time horizons of one or two weeks ahead but model predictions were increasingly unreliable at longer forecasting horizons. This suggests that forecasts may have been of good enough quality to inform decision making based on predictions a few weeks ahead of time but not longer, reflecting the high level of uncertainty in the processes driving the trajectory of the epidemic. Comparing forecasts based on the semi-mechanistic model to simpler null models showed that the best semi-mechanistic model variant performed better than the null models with respect to probabilistic calibration, and that this would have been identified from the earliest stages of the outbreak. As forecasts become a routine part of the toolkit in public health, standards for evaluation of performance will be important for assessing quality and improving credibility of mathematical models, and for elucidating difficulties and trade-offs when aiming to make the most useful and reliable forecasts.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDisease OutbreaksEpidemicsEpidemiologic MethodsForecastingHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansModels, StatisticalModels, TheoreticalSierra LeoneTime

Identifiers

PMID30742608
PMCPMC6386417
OpenAlexW2952959099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.