Summary
Background Infectious disease modeling can serve as a powerful tool for science-based management of outbreaks, providing situational awareness and decision support for policy makers. Predictive modeling of an emerging disease is challenging due to limited knowledge on its epidemiological characteristics. For COVID-19, the prediction difficulty was further compounded by continuously changing policies, varying behavioral responses, poor availability and quality of crucial datasets, and the variable influence of different factors as the pandemic progresses. Due to these challenges, predictive modeling for COVID-19 has earned a mixed track record.
Methods We provide a systematic review of prospective, data-driven modeling studies on population-level dynamics of COVID-19 in the US and conduct a quantitative assessment on crucial elements of modeling, with a focus on the aspects of modeling that are critical to make them useful for decision-makers. For each study, we documented the forecasting window, methodology, prediction target, datasets used, geographic resolution, whether they expressed quantitative uncertainty, the type of performance evaluation, and stated limitations. We present statistics for each category and discuss their distribution across the set of studies considered. We also address differences in these model features based on fields of study.
Findings Our initial search yielded 2,420 papers, of which 119 published papers and 17 preprints were included after screening. The most common datasets relied upon for COVID-19 modeling were counts of cases (93%) and deaths (62%), followed by mobility (26%), demographics (25%), hospitalizations (12%), and policy (12%). Our set of papers contained a roughly equal number of short-term (46%) and long-term (60%) predictions (defined as a prediction horizon longer than 4 weeks) and statistical (43%) versus compartmental (47%) methodologies. The target variables used were predominantly cases (89%), deaths (52%), hospitalizations (10%), and Rt (9%). We found that half of the papers in our analysis did not express quantitative uncertainty (50%). Among short-term prediction models, which can be fairly evaluated against truth data, 25% did not conduct any performance evaluation, and most papers were not evaluated over a timespan that includes varying epidemiological dynamics. The main categories of limitations stated by authors were disregarded factors (39%), data quality (28%), unknowable factors (26%), limitations specific to the methods used (22%), data availability (16%), and limited generalizability (8%). 36% of papers did not list any limitations in their discussion or conclusion section.
Interpretation Published COVID-19 models were found to be consistently lacking in some of the most important elements required for usability and translation, namely transparency, expressing uncertainty, performance evaluation, stating limitations, and communicating appropriate interpretations. Adopting the EPIFORGE 2020 guidelines would address these shortcomings and improve the consistency, reproducibility, comparability, and quality of epidemic forecasting reporting. We also discovered that most of the operational models that have been used in real-time to inform decision-making have not yet made it into the published literature, which highlights that the current publication system is not suited to the rapid information-sharing needs of outbreaks. Furthermore, data quality was identified to be one of the most important drivers of model performance, and a consistent limitation noted by the modeling community. The US public health infrastructure was not equipped to provide timely, high-quality COVID-19 data, which is required for effective modeling. Thus, a systematic infrastructure for improved data collection and sharing should be a major area of investment to support future pandemic preparedness.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
KN, SJ, and LG were funded by the NSF Rapid Response Research grants, Award ID 2108526 and 2028604. NGR has been supported by the National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119582). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health. KG and FP were funded by the SMDM Covid Modeling Accelerator. The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the supplement.
