ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Comparing human and model-based forecasts of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland.
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 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing human judgment forecasts in the rapid spread of the mpox outbreak: insights and challenges for pandemic preparedness.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Recent approaches in computational modelling for controlling pathogen threats.Life science alliance · 2024Review
- Forecasting the spread of COVID-19 based on policy, vaccination, and Omicron data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Generative Bayesian modeling to nowcast the effective reproduction number from line list data with missing symptom onset dates.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Learning from the past: A short term forecast method for the COVID-19 incidence curve.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- The importance of investing in data, models, experiments, team science, and public trust to help policymakers prepare for the next pandemic.PLOS global public health · 2023Review
- Human judgement forecasting of COVID-19 in the UK.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- Crowdsourced Perceptions of Human Behavior to Improve Computational Forecasts of US National Incident Cases of COVID-19: Survey Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccination and immunity waning: A modelling study for Portugal.Vaccine · 2022Article
- Chimeric forecasting: combining probabilistic predictions from computational models and human judgment.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- National and subnational short-term forecasting of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland during early 2021.Communications medicine · 2022Article
- Aggregating Human Judgment Probabilistic Predictions of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Transmission, Burden, and Preventive Measures.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Early human judgment forecasts of human monkeypox, May 2022.The Lancet. Digital health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Forecasts based on epidemiological modelling have played an important role in shaping public policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This modelling combines knowledge about infectious disease dynamics with the subjective opinion of the researcher who develops and refines the model and often also adjusts model outputs. Developing a forecast model is difficult, resource- and time-consuming. It is therefore worth asking what modelling is able to add beyond the subjective opinion of the researcher alone. To investigate this, we analysed different real-time forecasts of cases of and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland over a 1-4 week horizon submitted to the German and Polish Forecast Hub. We compared crowd forecasts elicited from researchers and volunteers, against a) forecasts from two semi-mechanistic models based on common epidemiological assumptions and b) the ensemble of all other models submitted to the Forecast Hub. We found crowd forecasts, despite being overconfident, to outperform all other methods across all forecast horizons when forecasting cases (weighted interval score relative to the Hub ensemble 2 weeks ahead: 0.89). Forecasts based on computational models performed comparably better when predicting deaths (rel. WIS 1.26), suggesting that epidemiological modelling and human judgement can complement each other in important ways.
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.