ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
EpiCurveBench: Evaluating epidemic curve digitization.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate data on disease case counts over time is essential for training reliable disease forecasting models. However, such data is often locked in non-machine-readable formats, most commonly as epidemic curve (epicurve) images-charts that depict case counts of a given disease over time, for a given location. Digitizing these charts would greatly expand the data available for forecasting models, improving their accuracy. Manual digitization, though, is very time-consuming, and existing automated methods struggle with real-world epicurves due to dense datapoints, overlapping series, and varied visual styles. To address this, we present EpiCurveBench, a benchmark of 100 manually curated and annotated epicurve images collected from diverse sources. The dataset spans a wide range of chart styles, from simple to highly complex. We also introduce EpiCurve Similarity (ECS), a new evaluation metric that captures the temporal structure of epicurves, handles series of varying lengths, and remains stable in the presence of incomplete data. Using this metric, we evaluate state-of-the-art chart data extraction methods on EpiCurveBench and find substantial room for improvement, with the best model achieving an ECS of only 42.9%. We release the dataset and evaluation pipeline to accelerate progress in epicurve extraction. More broadly, the difficulty of EpiCurveBench compared to existing chart extraction benchmarks provides a rigorous testbed for advancing chart data extraction methods beyond disease forecasting.
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.