Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of infectious disease forecasting in informing public policy. However, significant barriers remain for effectively linking infectious disease forecasts to public health decision making, including a lack of model validation. Forecasting model performance and accuracy should be evaluated retrospectively to understand under which conditions models were reliable and could be improved in the future.
Methods Using archived forecasts from the California Department of Public Health’s California COVID Assessment Tool (https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/), we compared how well different forecasting models predicted COVID-19 hospitalization census across California counties and regions during periods of Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variant predominance.
Results Based on mean absolute error estimates, forecasting models had variable performance across counties and through time. When accounting for model availability across counties and dates, some individual models performed consistently better than the ensemble model, but model rankings still differed across counties. Local transmission trends, variant prevalence, and county population size were informative predictors for determining which model performed best for a given county based on a random forest classification analysis. Overall, the ensemble model performed worse in less populous counties, in part because of fewer model contributors in these locations.
Conclusions Ensemble model predictions could be improved by incorporating geographic heterogeneity in model coverage and performance. Consistency in model reporting and improved model validation can strengthen the role of infectious disease forecasting in real-time public health decision making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the California Department of Public Health. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the California Department of Public Health or the California Health and Human Services Agency. This work was funded by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases, Cooperative Agreement Number 6 NU50CK000539.
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:
Source data were openly available before the initiation of the study and located on the CA Open Data Portal for COVID-19 hospitalizations (https://data.ca.gov/dataset/covid-19-hospital-data1/resource/8f989799-b959-46ca-b3c5-0e67e95b584e) and COVID-19 vaccination coverage (https://data.ca.gov/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-progress-dashboard-data). Forecast data including hospitalization forecasts and R-effective estimates are available on the California Communicable Diseases Assessment Tool: https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/
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
Footnotes
- adding a column highlighting the forecasting horizon for each model to Table 1 - providing additional methodological details on the random forest classification analysis - clarifying the choice to use median point estimates and providing additional caveats for interpreting those results - explaining our choice of the median hospital capacity for normalization - provided context of the choice of definition for relative error - providing additional context for interpreting the standardized ranking score - adding additional caveats in the discussion of the relationship between mean absolute error and county populations size - providing some examples of public health decisions informed by models displayed on CalCAT
Data Availability
All data and code used for analysis are available online at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7851280
https://github.com/whit1951/CA_COVID_Forecasting_Accuracy
https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/
https://data.ca.gov/group/covid-19
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-level-data-sets/
List of abbreviations
- (ABAHO)
- Association of Bay Area Health Officers
- (CalCAT)
- California Communicable diseases Assessment Tool
- (GSRHO)
- Greater Sacramento Region Health Officers
- (MAE)
- Mean absolute error
- (RANCHO)
- Rural Association of Northern California Health Officers
- (SJVC)
- San Joaquin Valley Consortium
- (SCAL)
- Southern California
