From Policy to Prediction: Assessing Forecasting Accuracy in an Integrated Framework with Machine Learning and Disease Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve the forecasting accuracy of the spread of infectious diseases, a hybrid model was recently introduced where the commonly assumed constant disease transmission rate was actively estimated from enforced mitigating policy data by a machine learning (ML) model and then fed to an extended susceptible-infected-recovered model to forecast the number of infected cases. Testing only one ML model, that is, gradient boosting model (GBM), the work left open whether other ML models would perform better. Here, we compared GBMs, linear regressions, k-nearest neighbors, and Bayesian networks (BNs) in forecasting the number of COVID-19-infected cases in the United States and Canadian provinces based on policy indices of future 35 days. There was no significant difference in the mean absolute percentage errors of these ML models over the combined dataset [H(3)=3.10,p=0.38]. In two provinces, a significant difference was observed [H(3)=8.77,H(3)=8.07,p<0.05], yet posthoc tests revealed no significant difference in pairwise comparisons. Nevertheless, BNs significantly outperformed the other models in most of the training datasets. The results put forward that the ML models have equal forecasting power overall, and BNs are best for data-fitting applications.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".