ArticleScientific reports2024
Forecasting the spread of COVID-19 based on policy, vaccination, and Omicron data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Development and validation of an early diagnosis model for severe mycoplasma pneumonia in children based on interpretable machine learning.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- An ensemble approach improves the prediction of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea.Journal of global health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel SARS-COV-2 virus poses a great risk to the world. During the COVID-19 pandemic, observing and forecasting several important indicators of the epidemic (like new confirmed cases, new cases in intensive care unit, and new deaths for each day) helped prepare the appropriate response (e.g., creating additional intensive care unit beds, and implementing strict interventions). Various predictive models and predictor variables have been used to forecast these indicators. However, the impact of prediction models and predictor variables on forecasting performance has not been systematically well analyzed. Here, we compared the forecasting performance using a linear mixed model in terms of prediction models (mathematical, statistical, and AI/machine learning models) and predictor variables (vaccination rate, stringency index, and Omicron variant rate) for seven selected countries with the highest vaccination rates. We decided on our best models based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and analyzed the significance of each predictor. Simple models were preferred. The selection of the best prediction models and the use of Omicron variant rate were considered essential in improving prediction accuracies. For the test data period before Omicron variant emergence, the selection of the best models was the most significant factor in improving prediction accuracy. For the test period after Omicron emergence, Omicron variant rate use was considered essential in deciding forecasting accuracy. For prediction models, ARIMA, lightGBM, and TSGLM generally performed well in both test periods. Linear mixed models with country as a random effect has proven that the choice of prediction models and the use of Omicron data was significant in determining forecasting accuracies for the highly vaccinated countries. Relatively simple models, fit with either prediction model or Omicron data, produced best results in enhancing forecasting accuracies with test data.
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.