ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2026
Evaluating the concordance of pollen forecasting apps against automated pollen monitoring: A single-site experience.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Individuals with allergic rhinitis and asthma rely on accurate pollen forecasts to avoid allergen exposure and manage symptoms. However, many widely used weather and health applications (apps) use manual pollen counting methods, which may vary in accuracy. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the concordance between popular pollen forecasting apps and real-time data collected from an automated pollen monitoring device at a single site in the Chicago area. Methods: We compared daily pollen forecasts from 2 commonly used consumer apps (The Weather Channel app and the AccuWeather app) with pollen data recorded by the PollenSense automated monitoring device over 2 months. To assess daily concordance, forecasted pollen levels and automated counts were categorized as being in the low, moderate, or high ranges. Descriptive and inferential assessment of accuracy and reliability of consumer-facing pollen forecasts were performed. Results: Across the study period, concordance between the consumer apps and the PollenSense counts was low (the forecast levels for the AccuWeather app were 7% for grass, 33% for ragweed, and 56% for mold, whereas those for The Weather Channel app were 29% for grass and 34.% for ragweed). No statistically significant association was found between the pollen forecasts and measured pollen levels. Conclusion: The popular pollen forecasting apps demonstrated poor concordance with real-time automated pollen data. These findings highlight the limitations of current forecasting tools and underscore the need for improved, validated technologies to support clinical decision making and public health recommendations for individuals affected by pollen allergies.
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.