Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40385629›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Dynamic causal models in infectious disease epidemiology-an assessment of their predictive validity based on the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK 2020 to 2024.

Cam Bowie, Karl Friston

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cam BowieRetired, Devon, United Kingdom.
Karl FristonQueen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This technical report addresses the predictive validity of long-term epidemiological forecasting based upon dynamic causal modeling. It uses complementary prospective and retrospective analyses. The prospective analysis completes a series of (annual) reports comparing predictions with subsequent outcomes (i.e., cases, deaths, hospital admissions and Long COVID) reported a year later. Predictive validity is then addressed retrospectively by examining predictions at various points during the pandemic, in relation to actual outcomes at three, six and 12 months after the predictions were evaluated. This analysis suggests that-with a sufficiently expressive dynamic causal model-three, six and 12 month projections can be remarkably accurate (to within 10% or less of observed outcomes) at certain phases of the epidemic: namely, the initial phase-before the emergence of highly transmissible variants-and toward the end of the pandemic, when slow fluctuations in transmissibility and virulence can be estimated more precisely. However, the predictive accuracy in the intervening periods are compromised, to the extent that some forecasts only remain within their Bayesian credible intervals for 3 months. We provide a quantitative analysis of predictive accuracy for future reference and discuss the implications for epidemiological modeling, and forecasting, of this sort.

Indexed as

COVID-19Epidemiological ModelsBayes TheoremForecastingHumansModels, StatisticalPandemicsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2United Kingdomcompartmental modelscoronavirusdynamic causal modelingepidemiology-descriptiveincidencepublic health methodology

Identifiers

PMID40385629
PMCPMC12081349

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.