ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Accuracy of US CDC COVID-19 forecasting models.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Spread of the plague in Venice, 1630-1631: epidemic entropy in a "natural experiment".medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Wastewater as an early indicator for short-term forecasting COVID-19 hospitalization in Germany.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Intra- and Inter-host Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 Through Viral Load Data Analysis.Cureus · 2025Article
- Forecasting drug-overdose mortality by age in the United States at the national and county levels.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Is It Possible to Predict COVID-19? Stochastic System Dynamic Model of Infection Spread in Kazakhstan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Hybrid prediction of infections and deaths due to COVID-19 in two Colombian data series.PloS one · 2023Article
- Wastewater surveillance beyond COVID-19: a ranking system for communicable disease testing in the tri-county Detroit area, Michigan, USA.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate predictive modeling of pandemics is essential for optimally distributing biomedical resources and setting policy. Dozens of case prediction models have been proposed but their accuracy over time and by model type remains unclear. In this study, we systematically analyze all US CDC COVID-19 forecasting models, by first categorizing them and then calculating their mean absolute percent error, both wave-wise and on the complete timeline. We compare their estimates to government-reported case numbers, one another, as well as two baseline models wherein case counts remain static or follow a simple linear trend. The comparison reveals that around two-thirds of models fail to outperform a simple static case baseline and one-third fail to outperform a simple linear trend forecast. A wave-by-wave comparison of models revealed that no overall modeling approach was superior to others, including ensemble models and errors in modeling have increased over time during the pandemic. This study raises concerns about hosting these models on official public platforms of health organizations including the US CDC which risks giving them an official imprimatur and when utilized to formulate policy. By offering a universal evaluation method for pandemic forecasting models, we expect this study to serve as the starting point for the development of more accurate models.
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.