MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081269630 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2020.0447

Multi-model forecasts of the ongoing Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo, March–October 2019

2020· article· en· W3081269630 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberlyn Roosa, Amna Tariq, Ping Yan, James M. Hyman, Gerardo Chowell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersCenter for Scientific ReviewNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsEpidemic modelContext (archaeology)Logistic functionPopulationOutbreakEconometricsGeographyComputer scienceOperations researchDemographyMathematicsMedicineVirologyMachine learningSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2018-2020 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the first to occur in an armed conflict zone. The resulting impact on population movement, treatment centres and surveillance has created an unprecedented challenge for real-time epidemic forecasting. Most standard mathematical models cannot capture the observed incidence trajectory when it deviates from a traditional epidemic logistic curve. We fit seven dynamic models of increasing complexity to the incidence data published in the World Health Organization Situation Reports, after adjusting for reporting delays. These models include a simple logistic model, a Richards model, an endemic Richards model, a double logistic growth model, a multi-model approach and two sub-epidemic models. We analyse model fit to the data and compare real-time forecasts throughout the ongoing epidemic across 29 weeks from 11 March to 23 September 2019. We observe that the modest extensions presented allow for capturing a wide range of epidemic behaviour. The multi-model approach yields the most reliable forecasts on average for this application, and the presented extensions improve model flexibility and forecasting accuracy, even in the context of limited epidemiological data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207