Combining models to generate consensus medium-term projections of hospital admissions, occupancy and deaths relating to COVID-19 in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mathematical modelling has played an important role in offering informed advice during the COVID-19 pandemic. In England, a cross government and academia collaboration generated medium-term projections (MTPs) of possible epidemic trajectories over the future 4-6 weeks from a collection of epidemiological models. In this article, we outline this collaborative modelling approach and evaluate the accuracy of the combined and individual model projections against the data over the period November 2021-December 2022 when various Omicron subvariants were spreading across England. Using a number of statistical methods, we quantify the predictive performance of the model projections for both the combined and individual MTPs, by evaluating the point and probabilistic accuracy. Our results illustrate that the combined MTPs, produced from an ensemble of heterogeneous epidemiological models, were a closer fit to the data than the individual models during the periods of epidemic growth or decline, with the 90% confidence intervals widest around the epidemic peaks. We also show that the combined MTPs increase the robustness and reduce the biases associated with a single model projection. Learning from our experience of ensemble modelling during the COVID-19 epidemic, our findings highlight the importance of developing cross-institutional multi-model infectious disease hubs for future outbreak control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".