Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35658007›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Addressing delayed case reporting in infectious disease forecast modeling.

Lauren J Beesley, Dave Osthus, Sara Y Del Valle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Viruses · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Responsive population-based cohorts as platforms for characterising pathogen- and population-level infection dynamics for epidemic prevention, preparedness and response.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  9. Real-time monitoring of excess mortality under a new endemic regime.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Lauren J BeesleyLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3788-5944
Dave OsthusLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4681-091X
Sara Y Del ValleLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0159-1952

Funding

Quantifying Model Uncertainty for Forecasting the Spread of Infectious DiseasesU01GM097658 · NIGMS · LOS ALAMOS NAT SECTY-LOS ALAMOS NAT LAB · PI DEL VALLE, SARA · 2011 to 2015
$3.3M
Development of an Open-Source and Data-Driven Modeling Platform to Monitor and Forecast Disease ActivityR01GM130668 · NIGMS · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SANTILLANA, MAURICIO · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM130668NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM097658
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infectious disease forecasting is of great interest to the public health community and policymakers, since forecasts can provide insight into disease dynamics in the near future and inform interventions. Due to delays in case reporting, however, forecasting models may often underestimate the current and future disease burden. In this paper, we propose a general framework for addressing reporting delay in disease forecasting efforts with the goal of improving forecasts. We propose strategies for leveraging either historical data on case reporting or external internet-based data to estimate the amount of reporting error. We then describe several approaches for adapting general forecasting pipelines to account for under- or over-reporting of cases. We apply these methods to address reporting delay in data on dengue fever cases in Puerto Rico from 1990 to 2009 and to reports of influenza-like illness (ILI) in the United States between 2010 and 2019. Through a simulation study, we compare method performance and evaluate robustness to assumption violations. Our results show that forecasting accuracy and prediction coverage almost always increase when correction methods are implemented to address reporting delay. Some of these methods required knowledge about the reporting error or high quality external data, which may not always be available. Provided alternatives include excluding recently-reported data and performing sensitivity analysis. This work provides intuition and guidance for handling delay in disease case reporting and may serve as a useful resource to inform practical infectious disease forecasting efforts.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesInfluenza, HumanComputer SimulationForecastingHumansModels, StatisticalPublic HealthUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35658007
PMCPMC9200328

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.