ArticlePLoS computational biology2023
Development of Accurate Long-lead COVID-19 Forecast.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- SARS-CoV-2 dynamics in New York City during March 2020-August 2023.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Improving influenza forecast in the tropics and subtropics: a case study of Hong Kong.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will likely remain a major public health burden; accurate forecast of COVID-19 epidemic outcomes several months into the future is needed to support more proactive planning. Here, we propose strategies to address three major forecast challenges, i.e., error growth, the emergence of new variants, and infection seasonality. Using these strategies in combination we generate retrospective predictions of COVID-19 cases and deaths 6 months in the future for 10 representative US states. Tallied over >25,000 retrospective predictions through September 2022, the forecast approach using all three strategies consistently outperformed a baseline forecast approach without these strategies across different variant waves and locations, for all forecast targets. Overall, probabilistic forecast accuracy improved by 64% and 38% and point prediction accuracy by 133% and 87% for cases and deaths, respectively. Real-time 6-month lead predictions made in early October 2022 suggested large attack rates in most states but a lower burden of deaths than previous waves during October 2022 -March 2023; these predictions are in general accurate compared to reported data. The superior skill of the forecast methods developed here demonstrate means for generating more accurate long-lead forecast of COVID-19 and possibly other infectious diseases.
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.