Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38989122›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

Accuracy of US CDC COVID-19 forecasting models.

Aviral Chharia, Govind Jeevan, Rajat Aayush Jha, Meng Liu, Jonathan M Berman, Christin Glorioso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Aviral Chharia *Global Health Research Collective, Academics for the Future of Science, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Govind Jeevan *Global Health Research Collective, Academics for the Future of Science, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Rajat Aayush Jha *Global Health Research Collective, Academics for the Future of Science, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Meng Liu *Global Health Research Collective, Academics for the Future of Science, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Jonathan M BermanGlobal Health Research Collective, Academics for the Future of Science, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Christin GloriosoGlobal Health Research Collective, Academics for the Future of Science, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.COVID-19ForecastingModels, StatisticalHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2United Statesbiomedical engineeringCOVID-19machine learningpandemicspublic health interventionstime series forecasting

Identifiers

PMID38989122
PMCPMC11233691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.