ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Improving outbreak forecasts through model augmentation.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating mathematical modelling and artificial intelligence to combat emerging viral syndemics: A systematic review.New microbes and new infections · 2026Review
- Learning shared forecast-error structure to improve ensemble forecasts of seasonal respiratory outbreaks.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Targeting Zoonotic Spillover Drivers for Global Pandemic Prevention: A Narrative Review.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- AI-driven big data analysis and predictive modeling of infectious disease immunity: from correlates to causal, multiscale understanding.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Trends and spatial distribution of pulmonary tuberculosis in China: a surveillance study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Accurate forecasts of disease outbreaks are critical for effective public health responses, management of healthcare surge capacity, and communication of public risk. There are a growing number of powerful forecasting methods that fall into two broad categories-empirical models that extrapolate from historical data, and mechanistic models based on fixed epidemiological assumptions. However, these methods often underperform precisely when reliable predictions are most urgently needed-during periods of rapid epidemic escalation. Here, we introduce epimodulation, a hybrid approach that integrates fundamental epidemiological principles into existing predictive models to enhance forecasting accuracy, especially around epidemic peaks. When applied to empirical and machine learning forecasting methods (Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average, Holt-Winters, gradient-boosting machines, Prophet, and spline models), epimodulation improved overall prediction accuracy by an average of 12.3% (range: 8.5 to 18.7%) for COVID-19 hospital admissions and by 32.9% (range: 24.2 to 43.7%) for influenza hospital admissions; accuracy during epidemic peaks improved even further, by an average of 27.9% and 43.8%, respectively. Epimodulation also substantially enhanced the performance of complex forecasting methods, including the COVID-19 Forecast Hub ensemble model, demonstrating its broad utility in improving forecast reliability at critical moments in disease outbreaks.
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.