Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31120881›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2019

Forecasting national and regional influenza-like illness for the USA.

Michal Ben-Nun, Pete Riley, James Turtle, David P Bacon, Steven Riley

Abstract 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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Multiscale influenza forecasting.Nature communications · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Michal Ben-NunPredictive Science Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9164-0008
Pete RileyPredictive Science Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
James TurtlePredictive Science Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
David P BaconLeidos, McLean, VA, USA.
Steven RileyMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7904-4804

Funding

Models for synthesising molecular, clinical and epidemiological data, and translaU01GM110721 · NIGMS · IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE · PI CAUCHEMEZ, SIMON, FERGUSON, NEIL MORRIS · 2014 to 2018
$1.9M
Medical Research Council MR/J008761/1Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM110721Wellcome Trust 200861/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health planners use forecasts of key metrics associated with influenza-like illness (ILI); near-term weekly incidence, week of season onset, week of peak, and intensity of peak. Here, we describe our participation in a weekly prospective ILI forecasting challenge for the United States for the 2016-17 season and subsequent evaluation of our performance. We implemented a metapopulation model framework with 32 model variants. Variants differed from each other in their assumptions about: the force-of-infection (FOI); use of uninformative priors; the use of discounted historical data for not-yet-observed time points; and the treatment of regions as either independent or coupled. Individual model variants were chosen subjectively as the basis for our weekly forecasts; however, a subset of coupled models were only available part way through the season. Most frequently, during the 2016-17 season, we chose; FOI variants with both school vacations and humidity terms; uninformative priors; the inclusion of discounted historical data for not-yet-observed time points; and coupled regions (when available). Our near-term weekly forecasts substantially over-estimated incidence early in the season when coupled models were not available. However, our forecast accuracy improved in absolute terms and relative to other teams once coupled solutions were available. In retrospective analysis, we found that the 2016-17 season was not typical: on average, coupled models performed better when fit without historically augmented data. Also, we tested a simple ensemble model for the 2016-17 season and found that it underperformed our subjective choice for all forecast targets. In this study, we were able to improve accuracy during a prospective forecasting exercise by coupling dynamics between regions. Although reduction of forecast subjectivity should be a long-term goal, some degree of human intervention is likely to improve forecast accuracy in the medium-term in parallel with the systematic consideration of more sophisticated ensemble approaches.

Indexed as

EpidemicsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Computational BiologyForecastingHumansHumidityInfluenza, HumanMarkov ChainsModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalMonte Carlo MethodProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSeasonsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31120881
PMCPMC6557527

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.