ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Leveraging synthetic and genetic data to improve epidemic forecasting.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Forecasting infectious disease outbreaks is hard. Forecasting emerging infectious diseases with limited historical data is even harder. In this paper, we investigate ways to improve emerging infectious disease forecasting when little pathogen-specific training data are available. Specifically, we explore two sources of information that may be available near the start of an emerging disease outbreak: synthetic data and genetic information. For this investigation, we conducted an experiment where we trained deep learning models on different combinations of real and synthetic data, both with and without genetic information, to explore how these models compare when forecasting COVID-19 cases for US states. All models are developed with an eye towards forecasting the next pandemic. We find that models trained with synthetic data have better forecast accuracy than models trained on real data alone, and models that use genetic variants have better forecast accuracy compared to those that do not. All models outperformed a baseline persistence model, a benchmark that proved challenging for many real-time COVID-19 case forecasting models, and multiple models outperformed the COVIDHub-4_week_ensemble. This paper demonstrates the value of these underutilized sources of information and provides a blueprint for forecasting future pandemics.
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.