Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42527441›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2026

Evaluation of respiratory disease hospitalisation forecasts using synthetic outbreak data.

Grégoire Béchade, Torbjörn Lundh, Philip Gerlee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Grégoire BéchadeEcolé Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France.
Torbjörn LundhDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7081-1384
Philip GerleeDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. gerlee@chalmers.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8503-0177

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet (Swedish Research Council) 2022-06368
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundForecasts of hospitalisations of infectious diseases play an important role for allocating healthcare resources during epidemics and pandemics. Large-scale analysis of model forecasts during the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the model rank distribution with respect to accuracy is heterogeneous and that ensemble forecasts have the highest average accuracy.

methodsBuilding on that work we generated a maximally diverse synthetic dataset of 324 different hospitalisation time-series that correspond to different disease characteristics and public health responses. We evaluated forecasts from 14 component models and 6 different ensembles.

resultsOur results show that component model accuracy was heterogeneous and varied depending on the current rate of disease transmission. Going from 7 day to 14 day forecasts mechanistic models improved in relative accuracy compared to statistical models. A novel adaptive ensemble method outperforms all other ensembles on synthetic data, and is closely followed by a median ensemble. When evaluated on data from the COVID-19 pandemic, component models performed worse, but the ensemble accuracy was still high, with the median ensemble performing best. We also investigated the relationship between ensemble error and variability of component forecasts and show that the coefficient of variation is predictive of future error.

conclusionsOur findings have the potential to improve epidemic forecasting, in particular the adaptive ensemble and the ability to assign confidence to ensemble forecasts at the time of prediction based on component forecast variability.

Identifiers

PMID42527441
PMCPMC13421584

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.