Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34592277›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2022

Model-based ensembles: Lessons learned from retrospective analysis of COVID-19 infection forecasts across 10 countries.

Martin Drews, Pavan Kumar, Ram Kumar Singh, Manuel De La Sen, Sati Shankar Singh, Ajai Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar, Meenu Rani, Prashant Kumar Srivastava

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Can infectious modelling be applicable globally - lessons from COVID 19.Current opinion in environmental science & health · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. An ensemblemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2022
    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

9 authors.

Martin DrewsDepartment of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby 2800, Denmark. Electronic address: mard@dtu.dk.
Pavan KumarRani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural University, Jhansi 284003, India. Electronic address: pawan2607@gmail.com.
Ram Kumar SinghDepartment of Natural Resources, TERI School of Advanced Studies, New Delhi 110070, India. Electronic address: singhramkumar@gmail.com.
Manuel De La SenInstitute of Research and Development of Processes IIDP, Department of Electricity and Electronics, University of the Basque Country, PO Box 48940, Leioa, Spain. Electronic address: manuel.delasen@ehu.eus.
Sati Shankar SinghRani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural University, Jhansi 284003, India. Electronic address: directorextension.rlbcau@gmail.com.
Ajai Kumar PandeyRani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural University, Jhansi 284003, India. Electronic address: pandey.ajai1@gmail.com.
Manoj KumarForest Research Institute, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248006, India. Electronic address: manojfri@gmail.com.
Meenu RaniDepartment of Geography, Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttarakhand 263001, India. Electronic address: meenurani06@gmail.com.
Prashant Kumar SrivastavaInstitute of Environment and Sustainable Development, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India. Electronic address: prashant.just@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mathematical models of different types and data intensities are highly used by researchers, epidemiologists, and national authorities to explore the inherently unpredictable progression of COVID-19, including the effects of different non-pharmaceutical interventions. Regardless of model complexity, forecasts of future COVID-19 infections, deaths and hospitalization are associated with large uncertainties, and critically depend on the quality of the training data, and in particular how well the recorded national or regional numbers of infections, deaths and recoveries reflect the the actual situation. In turn, this depends on, e.g., local test and abatement strategies, treatment capacities and available technologies. Other influencing factors including temperature and humidity, which are suggested by several authors to affect the spread of COVID-19 in some countries, are generally only considered by the most complex models and further serve to inflate the uncertainty. Here we use comparative and retrospective analyses to illuminate the aggregated effect of these systematic biases on ensemble-based model forecasts. We compare the actual progression of active infections across ten of the most affected countries in the world until late November 2020 with "re-forecasts" produced by two of the most commonly used model types: (i) a compartment-type, susceptible-infected-removed (SIR) model; and (ii) a statistical (Holt-Winters) time series model. We specifically examine the sensitivity of the model parameters, estimated systematically from different subsets of the data and thereby different time windows, to illustrate the associated implications for short- to medium-term forecasting and for probabilistic projections based on (single) model ensembles as inspired by, e.g., weather forecasting and climate research. Our findings portray considerable variations in forecasting skill in between the ten countries and demonstrate that individual model predictions are highly sensitive to parameter assumptions. Significant skill is generally only confirmed for short-term forecasts (up to a few weeks) with some variation across locations and periods.

Indexed as

COVID-19ForecastingHumansRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2SeasonsCOVID-19 ensemble forecastsEnvironmental factorsHolt-Winters modelRetrospective analysisSIR model

Identifiers

PMID34592277
PMCPMC8479318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.