Forecast Intervals for Infectious Disease Models
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Forecast intervals for infectious disease transmission and mortality have long been overconfident — i.e., the advertised coverage probabilities of those intervals fell short of their subsequent performances. Further, there was no apparent relation between how good models claimed to be (as measured by their purported forecast uncertainties) and how good the models really were (as measured by their actual forecast errors). The main cause of this problem lies in the misapplication of textbook methods for uncertainty quantification. A solution lies in the creative use of predictive tail probabilities to obtain valid interval coverages. This approach is compatible with all probabilistic predictive models whose forecast error behavior does not change “too quickly” over time.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274494: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274494: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
