Challenges of COVID-19 Case Forecasting in the US, 2020-2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub ( https://covid19forecasthub.org ). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1-4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making. Author Summary As SARS-CoV-2 began to spread throughout the world in early 2020, modelers played a critical role in predicting how the epidemic could take shape. Short-term forecasts of epidemic outcomes (for example, infections, cases, hospitalizations, or deaths) provided useful information to support pandemic planning, resource allocation, and intervention. Yet, infectious disease forecasting is still a nascent science, and the reliability of different types of forecasts is unclear. We retrospectively evaluated COVID-19 case forecasts, which were often unreliable. For example, forecasts did not anticipate the speed of increase in cases in early winter 2020. This analysis provides insights on specific problems that could be addressed in future research to improve forecasts and their use. Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of forecasts is critical to improving forecasting for current and future public health responses.
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 | 0.025 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".