ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison between simulated scenarios and Swedish COVID-19 cases throughout the pandemic.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assesses the accuracy of COVID-19 scenarios for new infections produced by the Swedish Public Health Agency (PHAS) from December 1, 2020, to March 20, 2023. We introduce a Similarity Error ([Formula: see text]), which evaluates the dissimilarity between simulated and observed case time series using the following attributes: area under the curves, peak timings, and growth/decline rates before and after peaks. Rather than using an arbitrary cut-off, we used a threshold determined through Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis, with performance evaluated using the Area Under the Curve (AUC), based on true positives identified by visual inspection for categorization. To further evaluate [Formula: see text]'s effectiveness, we conducted a sensitivity analysis across the full range of possible threshold values within the unit interval. Applying [Formula: see text] with an optimal threshold determined through ROC-analysis 7 rounds out of 11 rounds were classified as having one or more similar scenarios, including the 6 rounds identified by visual inspection. Our findings indicate that, despite the challenges of a rapidly evolving epidemic, PHAS delivered simulations that reflected real-world trends in most of the rounds.
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.