MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376636641 · doi:10.1101/2023.05.15.23289989

Retrospective evaluation of short-term forecast performance of ensemble sub-epidemic frameworks and other time-series models: The 2022-2023 mpox outbreak across multiple geographical scales, July 14 <sup>th</sup> , 2022, through February 26th, 2023

2023· preprint· en· W4376636641 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda Bleichrodt, Ruiyan Luo, Alexander Kirpich, Gerardo Chowell

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeorgia State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageContext (archaeology)Mean squared errorPsychological interventionStatisticsPrediction intervalEconometricsDemographyGeographyMathematicsTime seriesMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In May 2022, public health officials noted an unprecedented surge in mpox cases in non-endemic countries worldwide. As the epidemic accelerated, multi-model forecasts of the epidemic’s trajectory were critical in guiding the implementation of public health interventions and determining policy. As the case levels have significantly decreased as of early September 2022, evaluating model performance is essential to advance the growing field of epidemic forecasting. Using laboratory-confirmed mpox case data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Our World in Data (OWID) teams through the week of January 26th, 2023, we generated retrospective sequential weekly forecasts (e.g., 1-4-weeks) for Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, the USA, and at the global scale using models that require minimal input data including the auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), general additive model (GAM), simple linear regression (SLR), Facebook’s Prophet model, as well as the sub-epidemic wave (spatial-wave) and n -sub-epidemic modeling frameworks. We assess forecast performance using average mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), weighted interval score (WIS), 95% prediction interval coverage (95% PI coverage), and skill scores. Average Winkler scores were used to calculate skill scores for 95% PI coverage. Overall, the n -sub-epidemic modeling framework outcompeted other models across most locations and forecasting horizons, with the unweighted ensemble model performing best across all forecasting horizons for most locations regarding average MSE, MAE, WIS, and 95% PI coverage. However, many locations had multiple models performing equally well for the average 95% PI coverage. The n -sub-epidemic and spatial-wave frameworks improved considerably in average MSE, MAE, and WIS, and Winkler scores (95% PI coverage) relative to the ARIMA model. Findings lend further support to sub-epidemic frameworks for short-term forecasting epidemics of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Summary In the face of many unknowns (i.e., transmission, symptomology) posed by the unprecedented 2022-2023 mpox epidemic, near real-time short-term forecasts of the epidemic’s trajectory were essential in intervention implementation and guiding policy. As case levels continue to dissipate, evaluating the modeling strategies used in producing real-time forecasts is critical to refine and grow the field of epidemiological forecasting. Here, we systematically evaluate the performance of an ensemble n -sub-epidemic and related sub-epidemic wave (spatial-wave) modeling frameworks against ARIMA, GAM, Prophet, and SLR models in producing sequential retrospective weekly (1-4 week) forecasts of mpox cases for the highest burdened countries (i.e., Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and on a global scale. Overall, the n -sub-epidemic framework outperformed all other models most frequently, followed closely in success by the spatial-wave framework, GAM, and ARIMA models regarding average MSE, MAE, and WIS metrics. The n -sub-epidemic unweighted model and spatial-wave framework performed best overall based on average 95% PI coverage, and we noted widespread success for both frameworks in average Winkler scores. The considerable success seen with both frameworks highlights the continued utility of sub-epidemic methodologies in producing short-term forecasts and their potential application to other epidemiologically different diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207