ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
An expert judgment model to predict early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing human judgment forecasts in the rapid spread of the mpox outbreak: insights and challenges for pandemic preparedness.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Governing Patient-Facing AI-Generated Video in Digital Health: A Risk-and-Ethics Matrix for Deployment, Monitoring, and Change Control.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Disentangling the role of virus infectiousness and awareness-based human behavior during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the European Union.Applied mathematical modelling · 2023Article
- Unraveling the COVID-19 hospitalization dynamics in Spain using Bayesian inference.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- 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
- Chimeric forecasting: combining probabilistic predictions from computational models and human judgment.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Comparing human and model-based forecasts of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Early human judgment forecasts of human monkeypox, May 2022.The Lancet. Digital health · 2022Article
- Article
- Aggregating human judgment probabilistic predictions of the safety, efficacy, and timing of a COVID-19 vaccine.Vaccine · 2022Article
- Challenges in estimation, uncertainty quantification and elicitation for pandemic modelling.Epidemics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
From February to May 2020, experts in the modeling of infectious disease provided quantitative predictions and estimates of trends in the emerging COVID-19 pandemic in a series of 13 surveys. Data on existing transmission patterns were sparse when the pandemic began, but experts synthesized information available to them to provide quantitative, judgment-based assessments of the current and future state of the pandemic. We aggregated expert predictions into a single "linear pool" by taking an equally weighted average of their probabilistic statements. At a time when few computational models made public estimates or predictions about the pandemic, expert judgment provided (a) falsifiable predictions of short- and long-term pandemic outcomes related to reported COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, (b) estimates of latent viral transmission, and (c) counterfactual assessments of pandemic trajectories under different scenarios. The linear pool approach of aggregating expert predictions provided more consistently accurate predictions than any individual expert, although the predictive accuracy of a linear pool rarely provided the most accurate prediction. This work highlights the importance that an expert linear pool could play in flexibly assessing a wide array of risks early in future emerging outbreaks, especially in settings where available data cannot yet support data-driven computational modeling.
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.