ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Evaluation of respiratory disease hospitalisation forecasts using synthetic outbreak data.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of respiratory disease hospitalisation forecasts using synthetic outbreak data.Communications medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.