4.7 Article

Accurate long-range forecasting of COVID-19 mortality in the USA

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91365-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alberta Innovates [RES0052027]
  2. Pfizer [RES0052027]
  3. NSERC
  4. Canada Research Chair
  5. Amii
  6. CONACYT
  7. Isfahan University of Technology [4300/1011]
  8. Canadian Institute of Health Research
  9. Google Cloud

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed an adaptive learner using machine learning techniques to accurately forecast COVID-19 dynamics in the United States up to 10 weeks into the future with a mean absolute percentage error of 9%. It outperformed many other published COVID predictors by 19-48% and effectively captured the observed periodicity in daily reported numbers.
The need for improved models that can accurately predict COVID-19 dynamics is vital to managing the pandemic and its consequences. We use machine learning techniques to design an adaptive learner that, based on epidemiological data available at any given time, produces a model that accurately forecasts the number of reported COVID-19 deaths and cases in the United States, up to 10 weeks into the future with a mean absolute percentage error of 9%. In addition to being the most accurate long-range COVID predictor so far developed, it captures the observed periodicity in daily reported numbers. Its effectiveness is based on three design features: (1) producing different model parameters to predict the number of COVID deaths (and cases) from each time and for a given number of weeks into the future, (2) systematically searching over the available covariates and their historical values to find an effective combination, and (3) training the model using last-fold partitioning, where each proposed model is validated on only the last instance of the training dataset, rather than being cross-validated. Assessments against many other published COVID predictors show that this predictor is 19-48% more accurate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据