Repository logoRepository logo
GRO
  • GRO.data
  • GRO.plan
Help
  • English
  • Deutsch
Log In
New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
Publications
Researcher
Organizations
Other
  • Journals
  • Series
  • Events
  • Projects
  • Working Groups

Browsing by Author "Abbott, Sam"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Results Per Page
  • Sort Options
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Comparing human and model-based forecasts of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland
    (2022)
    Bosse, Nikos I.
    ;
    Abbott, Sam
    ;
    Bracher, Johannes
    ;
    Hain, Habakuk
    ;
    Quilty, Billy J.
    ;
    Jit, Mark
    ;
    van Leeuwen, Edwin
    ;
    Cori, Anne
    ;
    Funk, Sebastian
    ;
    Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 Working Group
    Forecasts based on epidemiological modelling have played an important role in shaping public policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This modelling combines knowledge about infectious disease dynamics with the subjective opinion of the researcher who develops and refines the model and often also adjusts model outputs. Developing a forecast model is difficult, resource- and time-consuming. It is therefore worth asking what modelling is able to add beyond the subjective opinion of the researcher alone. To investigate this, we analysed different real-time forecasts of cases of and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland over a 1-4 week horizon submitted to the German and Polish Forecast Hub. We compared crowd forecasts elicited from researchers and volunteers, against a) forecasts from two semi-mechanistic models based on common epidemiological assumptions and b) the ensemble of all other models submitted to the Forecast Hub. We found crowd forecasts, despite being overconfident, to outperform all other methods across all forecast horizons when forecasting cases (weighted interval score relative to the Hub ensemble 2 weeks ahead: 0.89). Forecasts based on computational models performed comparably better when predicting deaths (rel. WIS 1.26), suggesting that epidemiological modelling and human judgement can complement each other in important ways.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Predictive performance of multi-model ensemble forecasts of COVID-19 across European nations
    (2023)
    Sherratt, Katharine
    ;
    Gruson, Hugo
    ;
    Grah, Rok
    ;
    Johnson, Helen
    ;
    Niehus, Rene
    ;
    Prasse, Bastian
    ;
    Sandmann, Frank
    ;
    Deuschel, Jannik
    ;
    Wolffram, Daniel
    ;
    Abbott, Sam
    ;
    Funk, Sebastian
    Background: Short-term forecasts of infectious disease contribute to situational awareness and capacity planning. Based on best practice in other fields and recent insights in infectious disease epidemiology, one can maximise forecasts’ predictive performance by combining independent models into an ensemble. Here we report the performance of ensemble predictions of COVID-19 cases and deaths across Europe from March 2021 to March 2022. Methods: We created the European COVID-19 Forecast Hub, an online open-access platform where modellers upload weekly forecasts for 32 countries with results publicly visualised and evaluated. We created a weekly ensemble forecast from the equally-weighted average across individual models' predictive quantiles. We measured forecast accuracy using a baseline and relative Weighted Interval Score (rWIS). We retrospectively explored ensemble methods, including weighting by past performance. Results: We collected weekly forecasts from 48 models, of which we evaluated 29 models alongside the ensemble model. The ensemble had a consistently strong performance across countries over time, performing better on rWIS than 91% of forecasts for deaths (N=763 predictions from 20 models), and 83% forecasts for cases (N=886 predictions from 23 models). Performance remained stable over a 4-week horizon for death forecasts but declined with longer horizons for cases. Among ensemble methods, the most influential choice came from using a median average instead of the mean, regardless of weighting component models. Conclusions: Our results support combining independent models into an ensemble forecast to improve epidemiological predictions, and suggest that median averages yield better performance than methods based on means. We highlight that forecast consumers should place more weight on incident death forecasts than case forecasts at horizons greater than two weeks. Funding: European Commission, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, FEDER; Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya; Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin; Health Protection Research Unit; Wellcome Trust; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland; Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Los Alamos National Laboratory; German Free State of Saxony; NCBiR; FISR 2020 Covid-19 I Fase; Spanish Ministry of Health / REACT-UE (FEDER); National Institutes of General Medical Sciences; Ministerio de Sanidad/ISCIII; PERISCOPE European H2020; PERISCOPE European H2021; InPresa; National Institutes of Health, NSF, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Google, University of Virginia, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

About

About Us
FAQ
ORCID
End User Agreement
Privacy policy
Cookie consent
Imprint

Contact

Team GRO.publications
support-gro.publications@uni-goettingen.de
Matrix Chat: #support_gro_publications
Feedback

Göttingen Research Online

Göttingen Research Online bundles various services for Göttingen researchers:

GRO.data (research data repository)
GRO.plan (data management planning)
GRO.publications (publication data repository)
Logo Uni Göttingen
Logo Campus Göttingen
Logo SUB Göttingen
Logo eResearch Alliance

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.