Evaluation of FluSight influenza forecasting in the 2021-22 and 2022-23 seasons with a new target laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate forecasts can enable more effective public health responses during seasonal influenza epidemics. Forecasting teams were asked to provide national and jurisdiction-specific probabilistic predictions of weekly confirmed influenza hospital admissions for one through four weeks ahead for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 influenza seasons. Across both seasons, 26 teams submitted forecasts, with the submitting teams varying between seasons. Forecast skill was evaluated using the Weighted Interval Score (WIS), relative WIS, and coverage. Six out of 23 models outperformed the baseline model across forecast weeks and locations in 2021-22 and 12 out of 18 models in 2022-23. Averaging across all forecast targets, the FluSight ensemble was the 2 nd most accurate model measured by WIS in 2021-22 and the 5 th most accurate in the 2022-23 season. Forecast skill and 95% coverage for the FluSight ensemble and most component models degraded over longer forecast horizons and during periods of rapid change. Current influenza forecasting efforts help inform situational awareness, but research is needed to address limitations, including decreased performance during periods of changing epidemic dynamics.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".