Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39663531›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2024

Empirical prediction intervals applied to short term mortality forecasts and excess deaths.

Ricarda Duerst, Jonas Schöley

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ricarda DuerstMax Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Konrad-Zuse-Straße 1, 18057, Rostock, Germany. duerst@demogr.mpg.de.
Jonas SchöleyMax Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Konrad-Zuse-Straße 1, 18057, Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the winter of 2022/2023, excess death estimates for Germany indicated a 10% elevation, which has led to questions about the significance of this increase in mortality. Given the inherent errors in demographic forecasting, the reliability of estimating a 10% deviation is questionable. This research addresses this issue by analyzing the error distribution in forecasts of weekly deaths. By deriving empirical prediction intervals, we provide a more accurate probabilistic study of weekly expected and excess deaths compared to the use of conventional parametric intervals.

methodsUsing weekly death data from the Short-term Mortality Database (STMF) for 23 countries, we propose empirical prediction intervals based on the distribution of past out-of-sample forecasting errors for the study of weekly expected and excess deaths. Instead of relying on the suitability of parametric assumptions or the magnitude of errors over the fitting period, empirical prediction intervals reflect the intuitive notion that a forecast is only as precise as similar forecasts in the past turned out to be. We compare the probabilistic calibration of empirical skew-normal prediction intervals with conventional parametric prediction intervals from a negative-binomial GAM in an out-of-sample setting. Further, we use the empirical prediction intervals to quantify the probability of detecting 10% excess deaths in a given week, given pre-pandemic mortality trends.

resultsThe cross-country analysis shows that the empirical skew-normal prediction intervals are overall better calibrated than the conventional parametric prediction intervals. Further, the choice of prediction interval significantly affects the severity of an excess death estimate. The empirical prediction intervals reveal that the likelihood of exceeding a 10% threshold of excess deaths varies by season. Across the 23 countries studied, finding at least 10% weekly excess deaths in a single week during summer or winter is not very unusual under non-pandemic conditions. These results contrast sharply with those derived using a standard negative-binomial GAM.

conclusionOur results highlight the importance of well-calibrated prediction intervals that account for the naturally occurring seasonal uncertainty in mortality forecasting. Empirical prediction intervals provide a better performing solution for estimating forecast uncertainty in the analyses of excess deaths compared to conventional parametric intervals.

Indexed as

ForecastingMortalityCOVID-19HumansModels, StatisticalCOVID-19Cross-validationEmpirical prediction intervalsExcess deathsRobustness

Identifiers

PMID39663531
PMCPMC11633021

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.