Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

When are predictions useful? a new method for evaluating epidemic forecasts

View ORCID ProfileMaximilian Marshall, View ORCID ProfileFelix Parker, View ORCID ProfileLauren M Gardner
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.29.23292042
Maximilian Marshall
1Department of Civil and Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Maximilian Marshall
  • For correspondence: mmarsh29@jhu.edu
Felix Parker
1Department of Civil and Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Felix Parker
Lauren M Gardner
1Department of Civil and Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lauren M Gardner
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

We introduce the Weighted Contextual Interval Score (WCIS), a new method for evaluating the performance of short-term interval-form forecasts. The WCIS provides a pragmatic utility-based characterization of probabilistic predictions, developed in response to the challenge of evaluating forecast performances in the turbulent context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Current widely-used scoring techniques generally fall into two groups: those that generate an individually interpretable metric, and those that generate a comparable and aggregable metric. The WCIS harmonizes these attributes, resulting in a normalized score that is nevertheless intuitively representative of the in-situ quality of individual forecasts. This method is expressly intended to enable practitioners and policy-makers who may not have expertise in forecasting but are nevertheless essential partners in epidemic response to use and provide insightful analysis of predictions. In this paper, we detail the methodology of the WCIS and demonstrate its utility in the context of US state-level COVID-19 predictions.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. 2108526

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study used ONLY openly available human COVID-19 outcome data that were originally located at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6301718 AND https://healthdata.gov/d/j4ip-wfsv

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6301718

https://healthdata.gov/d/j4ip-wfsv

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted July 06, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
When are predictions useful? a new method for evaluating epidemic forecasts
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
When are predictions useful? a new method for evaluating epidemic forecasts
Maximilian Marshall, Felix Parker, Lauren M Gardner
medRxiv 2023.06.29.23292042; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.29.23292042
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
When are predictions useful? a new method for evaluating epidemic forecasts
Maximilian Marshall, Felix Parker, Lauren M Gardner
medRxiv 2023.06.29.23292042; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.29.23292042

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (280)
  • Allergy and Immunology (579)
  • Anesthesia (141)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1955)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (253)
  • Dermatology (186)
  • Emergency Medicine (333)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (702)
  • Epidemiology (11118)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (629)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3192)
  • Geriatric Medicine (309)
  • Health Economics (565)
  • Health Informatics (2048)
  • Health Policy (864)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (788)
  • Hematology (310)
  • HIV/AIDS (684)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12738)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (708)
  • Medical Education (318)
  • Medical Ethics (92)
  • Nephrology (336)
  • Neurology (2999)
  • Nursing (165)
  • Nutrition (465)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (589)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (614)
  • Oncology (1560)
  • Ophthalmology (478)
  • Orthopedics (185)
  • Otolaryngology (266)
  • Pain Medicine (202)
  • Palliative Medicine (57)
  • Pathology (403)
  • Pediatrics (914)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (382)
  • Primary Care Research (355)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2795)
  • Public and Global Health (5609)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1100)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (635)
  • Respiratory Medicine (764)
  • Rheumatology (340)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (314)
  • Sports Medicine (289)
  • Surgery (347)
  • Toxicology (48)
  • Transplantation (159)
  • Urology (133)