Predicting Seasonal Influenza Hospitalizations Using an Ensemble Super Learner: A Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate forecasts can inform response to outbreaks. Most efforts in influenza forecasting have focused on predicting influenza-like activity, with fewer on influenza-related hospitalizations. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate a super learner's predictions of 3 seasonal measures of influenza hospitalizations in the United States: peak hospitalization rate, peak hospitalization week, and cumulative hospitalization rate. We trained an ensemble machine learning algorithm on 15,000 simulated hospitalization curves and generated weekly predictions. We compared the performance of the ensemble (weighted combination of predictions from multiple prediction algorithms), the best-performing individual prediction algorithm, and a naive prediction (median of a simulated outcome distribution). Ensemble predictions performed similarly to the naive predictions early in the season but consistently improved as the season progressed for all prediction targets. The best-performing prediction algorithm in each week typically had similar predictive accuracy compared with the ensemble, but the specific prediction algorithm selected varied by week. An ensemble super learner improved predictions of influenza-related hospitalizations, relative to a naive prediction. Future work should examine the super learner's performance using additional empirical data on influenza-related predictors (e.g., influenza-like illness). The algorithm should also be tailored to produce prospective probabilistic forecasts of selected prediction targets.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".