Supplementary material from "Evaluating the forecasting performance of ensemble sub-epidemic frameworks and other time series models for the 2022-2023 mpox epidemic."
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 2022-2023 unprecedented mpox epidemic, near real-time short-term forecasts of the epidemic's trajectory were essential in intervention implementation and guiding policy. However, as case levels have significantly decreased, evaluating model performance is vital to advance the field of epidemic forecasting. Using laboratory-confirmed mpox case data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Our World in Data teams, we generated retrospective sequential weekly forecasts for Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and at the global scale using an auto-regressive integrated moving average model, generalized additive model, simple linear regression, Facebook's Prophet model, as well as the sub-epidemic wave and n-sub-epidemic modeling frameworks. We assessed forecast performance using average mean squared error, mean absolute error, weighted interval scores, 95% prediction interval coverage, skill scores, and Winkler scores. Overall, the n-sub-epidemic modeling framework outcompeted other models across most locations and forecasting horizons, with the unweighted ensemble model performing best most frequently. The n-sub-epidemic and spatial-wave frameworks considerably improved in average forecasting performance relative to the auto-regressive integrated moving average model (>10%) for all performance metrics. Findings further support sub-epidemic frameworks for short-term forecasting epidemics of emerging and re-emerging infectious 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.279 | 0.040 |
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".