ArticleScientific reports2022
Spatio-temporal predictions of COVID-19 test positivity in Uppsala County, Sweden: a comparative approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Spatio-Temporal COVID-19 Modeling: A Global Systematic Review of Data Integration, Equity, and Lessons for Pandemic Preparedness.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Time series anomaly detection in helpline call trends for early detection of COVID-19 spread across Sweden, 2020.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Spatial modelling of agro-ecologically significant grassland species using the INLA-SPDE approach.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous spatio-temporal COVID-19 prediction models have focused on the prediction of subsequent number of cases, and have shown varying accuracy and lack of high geographical resolution. We aimed to predict trends in COVID-19 test positivity, an important marker for planning local testing capacity and accessibility. We included a full year of information (June 29, 2020-July 4, 2021) with both direct and indirect indicators of transmission, e.g. mobility data, number of calls to the national healthcare advice line and vaccination coverage from Uppsala County, Sweden, as potential predictors. We developed four models for a 1-week-window, based on gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and integrated nested laplace approximations (INLA). Three of the models (GB, RF and INLA) outperformed the naïve baseline model after data from a full pandemic wave became available and demonstrated moderate accuracy. An ensemble model of these three models slightly improved the average root mean square error to 0.039 compared to 0.040 for GB, RF and INLA, 0.055 for ARIMA and 0.046 for the naïve model. Our findings indicate that the collection of a wide variety of data can contribute to spatio-temporal predictions of COVID-19 test positivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.