REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by
Forecasting Influenza Hospitalizations Using a Bayesian Hierarchical Nonlinear Model with Discrepancy
T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A Bayesian two-module scheme with a discrepancy term produces accurate probabilistic forecasts of weekly influenza hospitalizations, beating 19 of 20 non-ensemble FluSight submissions in the 2023-24 season.
desk verdict A useful Bayesian two-component forecasting framework with a real simulation study, but the headline 2023-24 comparison depends on an unstated detail about when the empirical Bayes prior is fit. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the two-module forecast pipeline joined by a Bayesian cut. Module one is a hierarchical Beta regression for ILI with logit mean $f_{\theta_s}(w)+\gamma_w+\upsilon_{s,w}$, where $f_{\theta_s}$ is either the infectious compartment of an SIR model or the asymmetric Gaussian (ASG) function, a two-piece bell-shaped curve whose rise and fall rates can differ; $\gamma_w$ is a reverse-random-walk discrepancy shared by all seasons and $\upsilon_{s,w}$ is a current-season discrepancy. Module two is the hospitalization model $H_{s,w}=\alpha_{0s}+\alpha_{1s}(\mathrm{ILI}_{s,w}P)+\alpha_{2s}(\mathrm{ILI}_{s,w}P)^2+\phi H_{s,w-1}+\epsilon_{s,w}$, an ARX(1) regression. The modules are fit separately with MCMC, and draws from the ILI posterior predictive distribution are plugged into the hospitalization model to produce forecast quantiles. This machinery carries the argument because it transfers information from thirteen seasons of ILI data to a target with only two seasons of hospitalization data, and the discrepancy terms correct systematic shape errors such as the underprediction of the holiday-week peak that a smooth curve alone would miss.
What would settle it
Refit the ASGD ILI module with log-normal, truncated-normal, and negative-binomial hospitalization error models and rerun the 2023-24 FluSight comparison on exactly the same targets; if any of these alternatives beats ASGD NORM2 or changes its rank by more than one position, the normal-error assumption is load-bearing rather than incidental. A complementary check is to apply the log-scale model that was validated in the simulation to the raw hospitalization data and see whether its interval scores match the paper's real-data results.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that a two-component Bayesian framework—an ILI module whose logit mean is a nonlinear trajectory function plus a season-shared and a season-specific reverse-random-walk discrepancy term, coupled through a Bayesian cut to an ARX(1) hospitalization module with ILI as a linear or quadratic predictor—produces accurate and well calibrated 1- to 4-week-ahead probabilistic forecasts of state and national flu hospitalizations. The preferred configuration, ASGD NORM2, uses the asymmetric Gaussian function with discrepancy for ILI and a normal-error hospitalization model with a quadratic ILI term. In the 2023 FluSight comparison the authors report that this scheme outperformed all but one of the 20 non-ensemble competing models on the log-weighted interval score, and that the discrepancy component was particularly valuable around the holiday-week ILI peak. The paper intends these results as evidence that long ILI records can compensate for the short hospitalization record and that careful discrepancy modeling, not a more complex mechanistic model, is what most improves forecast skill.
Load-bearing premise
The real-data evaluation assumes that the normal-error ARX model on raw hospitalization counts, with negative forecast draws truncated to zero, is adequate for the 2023-24 season even though the simulation study validated a log-transformed version of the model; if that error specification is misspecified, the reported forecast scores and calibration may not reflect the method's true performance.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- State and national influenza hospitalization forecasts can exploit ILI data back to 2010, sidestepping the short hospitalization record.
- Adding a discrepancy term to the ILI curve improves forecast skill and calibration, especially for forecasts that straddle the holiday-week ILI peak.
- Fitting the ILI and hospitalization modules separately and coupling them through a Bayesian cut is faster, more stable, and more accurate in this application than fitting the joint model.
- A relatively simple two-stage regression scheme can compete with specialized FluSight forecast submissions, including mechanistic and machine-learning models.
- The residual gap to the best FluSight model points to spatial structure as the next improvement, since the one model that outperformed ASGD NORM2 was a spatial model.
Reading between the lines
- A natural stress test the paper does not run is a season with an early or late ILI peak: the discrepancy random walk is trained on historical holiday-week patterns, so a shifted peak could erode the forecast gains.
- If the normal-error mismatch between the simulation and real-data analyses is real, switching to a count-valued or log-scale hospitalization model that preserves calibration could make the FluSight ranking more robust.
- The same two-module template should transfer to other respiratory diseases that have long syndromic surveillance and short hospitalization records, since nothing in the structure is influenza-specific.
- Spatially informed pooling of the ILI or hospitalization modules is the most direct route to closing the small gap to the winning FluSight model and to improving forecasts for states like Montana, where ASGD NORM2 underperformed.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper proposes a two-component Bayesian framework for probabilistic forecasting of weekly influenza hospitalizations in the US. The first component is a hierarchical nonlinear model for influenza-like illness (ILI), using either an SIR compartmental model or an asymmetric Gaussian (ASG) function, with an optional reverse-random-walk discrepancy term. The second component is an ARX(1) model in which hospitalizations are regressed on ILI forecasts, with the two modules combined in the style of a Bayesian cut. The authors evaluate the framework in a leave-one-season-out simulation study of log-hospitalizations and in a real-data analysis of 2023-24 state and national hospitalization forecasts, comparing their ASGD NORM2 model against 20 non-ensemble FluSight submissions. The central claim is that the proposed approach outperformed all but one of those 20 models over the 2023 season.
Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper provides a practically useful and computationally feasible forecasting framework that leverages the longer ILI record to forecast the newer hospitalization target. The evaluation has notable strengths: it uses proper scoring rules, compares against external FluSight benchmarks rather than only internal baselines, and reports shared-target relative scores (RLWIS) to mitigate missing-forecast artifacts. The simulation study is genuinely out-of-sample through the leave-one-season-out design. However, two load-bearing issues currently prevent the headline claim from being accepted at face value: the timing of the empirical Bayes prior for the ASG baseline parameter is not specified relative to the forecast season, and the simulation study validates a log-hospitalization model while the real-data evaluation uses a normal model on raw counts with truncation. These concerns are fixable but require additional analysis or explicit clarification.
major comments (3)
- [Section 3.6 and Section 5] The out-of-sample validity of the 2023 FluSight comparison is not established because the empirical Bayes prior for the ASG parameter lambda_s is described as being centered at the mean of MLEs 'across all seasons' without stating whether the 2023 season is included or whether the 2023 MLE, if used, is computed only from data available at each forecast week. Section 3.6 also states that the prior variance was set so that the prior was 'tight around the mean' and that this choice 'led to improved mixing of posterior draws and better forecasts,' but the text does not say whether this tuning was carried out on the 2023 forecast targets. If the full 2023 ILI trajectory enters the prior, then every forecast in Section 5 is informed by future observations, which would invalidate the comparison against the 20 FluSight models. The authors must state precisely which seasons and which data windows are used to construct this prior, and if the full 2023 season enters, rerun the analysis with a prior constructed only from seasons and weeks preceding each forecast date.
- [Section 4 versus Sections 3.8 and 5] The simulation study validates a different hospitalization model from the one used in the real-data headline analysis. Section 4 states that 'we simulated log-hospitalizations' and that the data-generating parameters were estimated by fitting model (6) after log-transforming hospitalizations, whereas Section 3.8 describes a normal-error model on raw hospitalization counts whose negative predictive draws are truncated to zero for the Section 5 analysis. The LOSO simulation therefore provides evidence for the log-scale version of the model, but it does not directly support the adequacy of the normal-on-raw-counts model with truncation that produces the reported 2023 forecasts. Without a simulation or calibration check for that exact error specification, the favorable scores of ASGD NORM2 in Table 2 could be driven by an error model that the simulation never tested. The authors should either rerun the simulation under the normal/truncated specification used in Section 5 or add an explicit demonstration that the two error specifications lead to equivalent forecast performance for the 2023 targets.
- [Abstract, Section 5, and Table 2] The abstract and conclusion state that the proposed method 'outperformed all but one of 20 competing models' without specifying that this ranking is under the log-weighted interval score (LWIS). Table 2 shows that ASGD NORM2 has the best mean WIS but is second to UGA flucast-INFLAenza on mean LWIS and median LWIS, so the claim is sensitive to the scoring rule. The authors should state the criterion in the abstract and conclusion, or limit the claim to the LWIS metric, to avoid the impression that the proposed model dominates under all reported scores.
minor comments (5)
- [Section 3.8] The description of the posterior predictive sampling says that negative values were 'set to 0,' but it does not describe how the corresponding quantiles were recomputed after truncation; a brief explanation of the quantile construction from the truncated samples would improve reproducibility.
- [Equation (9)] The weighted interval score formula uses the index k in the summation and the weight w_k, while the surrounding text defines the weights as w_b; this notational inconsistency should be fixed.
- [Figure 9 caption and Section 5 text] The caption says 'the 21 models being compared' while the text says 'all 22 models being compared'; the count should be reconciled, especially because Table 2 includes both ASGD NORM2 and SIRD NORM2 in addition to the 20 external FluSight models.
- [Throughout] There are numerous typos and misspellings, including 'assymetric,' 'intveral,' 'hierarhical,' 'remeiniscent,' 'indicateds,' 'referrred,' and 'NOMR2' in Section 5; a careful copyedit is needed.
- [Section 4] The simulation study fixes the hospitalization parameters at posterior means from the 2022 season and chooses weeks 14, 20, 26, 32, and 38 for forecasting, but it does not state a random seed or provide code for replicating the 500 Monte Carlo replicates; including these details would strengthen reproducibility.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the central comparison is against external FluSight submissions and the derivation is self-contained; the empirical-Bayes prior timing is an unresolved leakage risk, not a demonstrated circular step.
full rationale
The claimed derivation is not circular. The main real-data claim—ASGD NORM2 'outperformed all but one' of 20 FluSight models—is evaluated against externally submitted FluSight forecasts held on a public hub (Section 5; Table 2), so the benchmark is not generated by the paper's model. The two-component construction (ILI model (1), hospitalization model (6), Bayesian-cut combination (7)-(8)) is a modular pipeline; hospitalization forecasts are posterior predictive draws from fitted parameters, not identities with the inputs. The simulation study simulates log-hospitalizations from parameters fitted to 2022 data and then scores the models, which is a model-consistency check rather than a circular prediction. Prior selection follows Osthus et al. and Ulloa with explicit changes; no uniqueness theorem or author-imported constraint forces the chosen model. The only concern that could threaten the out-of-sample interpretation is the empirical-Bayes prior in Section 3.6 (θ centered on MLEs of λ_s 'across all seasons') combined with the statement in Section 3.8 that models were 'fit using US national data from 2010 to 2023'; if the 2023 MLE used the full season, forecasts for 2023 would have future information. But the text does not establish that the full-season 2023 MLE entered the prior used at each forecast week, and the forecasts are not algebraically forced by any fitted parameter, so this is an unresolved data-leakage/correctness risk, not demonstrated circularity. The paper's own caveat that performance may vary by season (Section 6) is a limitation, not a circular step.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- Empirical Bayes prior mean for ASG offset lambda_s =
Mean of MLEs across seasons (exact value not reported)
- Empirical Bayes prior variance (tightness) for lambda_s =
Not stated; set to be tight around the mean
- Scaling factor P =
Total population / 50,000
assumptions (7)
- domain assumption Beta distribution with logit link adequately models weekly ILI proportions
- domain assumption The SIR or ASG function captures the main trajectory of ILI, and reverse random-walk discrepancy terms capture remaining systematic patterns
- ad hoc to paper ILI data from seasons 2010-2022 (excluding 2020) are informative for forecasting future seasons, and the 2020 season is an anomaly that can be discarded
- domain assumption Hospitalizations are a linear/quadratic function of ILI with an AR(1) term, and the error is normally distributed
- domain assumption Bayesian cut approximation: fitting the ILI and hospitalization modules separately and plugging in ILI forecast draws yields valid predictive distributions
- ad hoc to paper The reverse random-walk discrepancy with sum-to-zero constraint is identifiable and generalizes to new seasons
- ad hoc to paper Setting the initial susceptible fraction S0 = 0.9 in the SIR model
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Forecasting Influenza Hospitalizations Using a Bayesian Hierarchical Nonlinear Model with Discrepancy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GH6GMWTG
@misc{pith2026241214339,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Forecasting Influenza Hospitalizations Using a Bayesian Hierarchical Nonlinear Model with Discrepancy},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GH6GMWTG}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14339}
}
read the original abstract
The annual influenza outbreak leads to significant public health and economic burdens making it desirable to have prompt and accurate probabilistic forecasts of the disease spread. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hosts annually a national flu forecasting competition which has led to the development of a variety of flu forecast modeling methods. Beginning in 2013, the target to be forecast was weekly percentage of patients with an influenza-like illness (ILI), but in 2021 the target was changed to weekly hospitalizations. Reliable hospitalization data has only been available since 2021, but ILI data has been available since 2010 and has been successfully forecast for several seasons. In this manuscript, we introduce a two component modeling framework for forecasting hospitalizations utilizing both hospitalization and ILI data. The first component is for modeling ILI data using a nonlinear Bayesian model. The second component is for modeling hospitalizations as a function of ILI. For hospitalization forecasts, ILI is first forecast then hospitalizations are forecast with ILI forecasts used as a predictor. In a simulation study, the hospitalization forecast model is assessed and two previously successful ILI forecast models are compared. Also assessed is the usefulness of including a systematic model discrepancy term in the ILI model. Forecasts of state and national hospitalizations for the 2023-24 flu season are made, and different modeling decisions are compared. We found that including a discrepancy component in the ILI model tends to improve forecasts during certain weeks of the year. We also found that other modeling decisions such as the exact nonlinear function to be used in the ILI model or the error distribution for hospitalization models may or may not be better than other decisions, depending on the season, location, or week of the forecast.
Figures
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Bayesian Stacking via Proper Scoring Rule Optimization using a Gibbs Posterior
A Gibbs posterior over linear pool weights, built by exponentiating a CRPS-based risk, gives forecast ensemble weights with uncertainty estimates and often improves on BMA, AVS, and equal weighting.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
FORECASTING INFLUENZA HOSPITALIZATIONS USING A BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL NONLINEAR MODEL WITH DISCREPANCY Spencer Wadsworth University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut iac25002@uconn.edu Jarad Niemi Iowa State University Ames, Iowa niemi@iastate.edu ABSTRACT The annual influenza outbreak leads to significant public health and economic burdens making it desi...
arXiv 2021
-
[3]
The function is defined in (3)
The ASG function is denoted as 𝐴𝑆𝐺𝜃(𝑤) where𝜃=(𝜆,𝜈,𝜇,𝜎 2 1,𝜎 2 2),𝜈 >0,𝜆 >0, 𝜇∈(−∞ ,∞),𝜎1,𝜎 2 > 0 and𝑤∈( 1,...,𝑊 ) is week. The function is defined in (3). 𝐴𝑆𝐺𝜃(𝑤)= 𝜆+(𝜈−𝜆)exp[−(𝑤−𝜇)2/2𝜎2 1], 𝑤 < 𝜇 𝜆+(𝜈−𝜆)exp[−(𝑤−𝜇)2/2𝜎2 2], 𝑤 ≥ 𝜇 (3) In this manuscript, we use a slightly reparameterized version of function (3) shown in (4), where𝜂=𝜈−𝜆 >0. This constraint...
work page 2019
-
[5]
Finally, the manuscript is concluded in section 6 with general observations and some discussion. 2 Flu outbreak data In this section we introduce, define, and visually evaluate ILI and hospitalization data. ILI and hospitalization data have been the object of forecasting for FluSight with ILI being the target for the first seven seasons, 2013 to 2019, and...
work page 2013
-
[7]
4 Bayesian nonlinear flu hospitalizations forecasting 3 ILI and hospitalization forecast modeling The typical behavior of the ILI data to begin low, rise to a peak, and then fall motivates the use of a nonlinear function which follows a similar trajectory. Compartmental models are standard mathematical models used for modelling disease outbreaks which may...
work page 2019
-
[10]
3.5 Hospitalization model The second component for forecast modeling is based on the relationship between hospitalizations and ILI and is defined in (6). This is an example of an autoregressive model with exogenous variables where the autoregressive lag is one (ARX(1)) [Raftery et al., 2010, Ljung, 1987]. 𝐻𝑠,𝑤 =𝛼0𝑠+𝛼1𝑠(𝐼𝐿𝐼𝑠,𝑤×𝑃)+ 𝛼2𝑠(𝐼𝐿𝐼𝑠,𝑤×𝑃)2+𝜙𝐻𝑠,𝑤−1+𝜖𝑠...
work page 2010
-
[12]
Step 1: Sample g𝐼𝐿𝐼 ∗ 𝑠,𝑤 :(𝑤+4) Step 2: Sample 𝛼∗ 0𝑠,𝛼∗ 1𝑠,𝛼∗ 2𝑠,𝜙∗,𝜎∗ 𝜖𝑠,𝜔∗ 𝑠 from respective marginal posterior distributions Step 3: Sample 𝐻∗ 𝑠,𝑤+𝑖 from𝐷(𝜔∗ 𝑠,𝜇∗ 𝑠,𝑤+𝑖,𝜎 2 𝜖𝑠), where 𝜇∗ 𝑠,𝑤+𝑖 =𝛼∗ 0𝑠+𝛼∗ 1𝑠(𝐼𝐿𝐼∗ 𝑠,𝑤+𝑖×𝑃)+ 𝛼∗ 2𝑠(𝐼𝐿𝐼∗ 𝑠,𝑤+𝑖×𝑃)2+𝜙∗𝐻∗ 𝑠,𝑤+𝑖−1 Step 4: Repeat step 3 for 𝑖∈{ 1, 2, 3, 4} to obtain𝐻∗ 𝑠,(𝑤+1):(𝑤+4) Step 5: Repeat steps 1-4 𝐾 tim...
work page 2010
-
[15]
This demonstrates the particular importance of modeling discrepancy at and around that week. The SIRD outperforms the SIR model, again showing the importance of modeling discrepancy, but it is still outperformed by the ASG and even for a few weeks by the BASE and ARIMA models. Plot b) shows boxplots of all forecast scores by model and separated by horizon...
work page 2023
-
[18]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention FluView portal
CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention FluView portal. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/ fluportaldashboard.html, 2024a. Accessed: 2024-10-22. CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention FluSight: About flu forecasting. https://www.cdc.gov/ flu-forecasting/about/index.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/flusight/ how-flu-foreca...
work page 2024
Show all 28 references
-
[20]
The BASE model is a simple random walk with drift model, and the ARIMA model is fit by selecting the best possible model give the data according to a fitting criterion
Besides the 4 ILI models, we also included forecasts for a naive baseline (BASE) model and an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model. The BASE model is a simple random walk with drift model, and the ARIMA model is fit by selecting the best possible model give t...
2008
-
[21]
Tilmann Gneiting and Matthias Katzfuss
Accessed: 2024- 10-22. Tilmann Gneiting and Matthias Katzfuss. Probabilistic forecasting. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 1: 125–151,
2024
-
[22]
These plots show flu outbreak trajectories similar to those in figure
Additional plots of ILI data and hospitalization data for all 50 US states are included in the supplementary material [Wadsworth and Niemi, 2024]. These plots show flu outbreak trajectories similar to those in figure
2024
-
[23]
Perhaps for other weeks, week 30 for example, there tends to be additional systematic behavior not captured by the ASG function. Figure 4: Observed US national influenza-like illness (ILI) percentage for seasons 2010 to 2022 excluding 2020 (grey) overlaid with MLE of an asymme...
2010
-
[24]
17 Bayesian nonlinear flu hospitalizations forecasting Jennifer N Hird and Gregory J McDermid
Accessed: 2024-10-22. 17 Bayesian nonlinear flu hospitalizations forecasting Jennifer N Hird and Gregory J McDermid. Noise reduction of NDVI time series: An empirical comparison of selected techniques. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113(1):248–258,
2024
-
[25]
Evaluation of FluSight influenza forecasting in the 2021– 22 and 2022–23 seasons with a new target laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations
Sarabeth M Mathis, Alexander E Webber, Tom´as M Le´on, Erin L Murray, Monica Sun, Lauren A White, Logan C Brooks, Alden Green, Addison J Hu, Roni Rosenfeld, et al. Evaluation of FluSight influenza forecasting in the 2021– 22 and 2022–23 seasons with a new target laboratory-con...
2021
-
[26]
Collaborative efforts to forecast seasonal influenza in the United States, 2015–2016
Craig J McGowan, Matthew Biggerstaff, Michael Johansson, Karyn M Apfeldorf, Michal Ben-Nun, Logan Brooks, Matteo Convertino, Madhav Erraguntla, David C Farrow, John Freeze, et al. Collaborative efforts to forecast seasonal influenza in the United States, 2015–2016. Scientific ...
2015
-
[27]
Alexander Tsyplakov
Accessed: 2024-10-22. Alexander Tsyplakov. Evaluation of probabilistic forecasts: proper scoring rules and moments. Available at SSRN 2236605,
2024
-
[28]
Robert L Winkler
Accessed: 2024-10-22. Robert L Winkler. Probabilistic prediction: Some experimental results. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336):675–685,
2024
-
[32]
ASGD NORM2 model is well calibrated at most levels, with slight overcoverage at the lower levels up to about 80%, and has better coverage than all other models
Forecasts are separated by ILI model, and the hospitalization models are all normally distributed and ILI is a quadratic predictor. ASGD NORM2 model is well calibrated at most levels, with slight overcoverage at the lower levels up to about 80%, and has better coverage than al...
2023
-
[500]
Model comparison was done by calculating a proper scoring rule for each forecast. Proper scoring rules are the current standard for comparing performance between probabilistic forecasts and selecting the best forecasts according to the notion of maximizing sharpness subject to...
2007
-
[2006]
Results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s predict the 2013–2014 Influenza Season Challenge
Matthew Biggerstaff, David Alper, Mark Dredze, Spencer Fox, Isaac Chun-Hai Fung, Kyle S Hickmann, Bryan Lewis, Roni Rosenfeld, Jeffrey Shaman, Ming-Hsiang Tsou, et al. Results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s predict the 2013–2014 Influenza Season Challeng...
2013
-
[2008]
Pierre E Jacob, Lawrence M Murray, Chris C Holmes, and Christian P Robert
doi: 10.18637/jss.v027.i03. Pierre E Jacob, Lawrence M Murray, Chris C Holmes, and Christian P Robert. Better together? statistical learning in models made of modules. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.08719,
-
[2013]
Ensemble forecasts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the US
Evan L Ray, Nutcha Wattanachit, Jarad Niemi, Abdul Hannan Kanji, Katie House, Estee Y Cramer, Johannes Bracher, Andrew Zheng, Teresa K Yamana, Xinyue Xiong, et al. Ensemble forecasts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the US. medRxiv, pages 2020–08,
2019
-
[2014]
Notable from the plots in the top of figure 1 is the regular trajectory of the ILI
This convention is used for the remainder of this manuscript. Notable from the plots in the top of figure 1 is the regular trajectory of the ILI. With the exception of season 2020, the ILI begins low at week 1 and increases as the fall and winter progress until the ILI reaches...
2020
-
[2015]
and Nott et al. [2023]. Cutting a model into two component models or “modules“ may be justfied for several reasons including to reduce time to fit the model, avoiding mixing issues of posterior sampling distributions, improving predictive performance or to prevent model misspe...
2023
-
[2021]
Initially the target data for forecasts was influenza-like illness (ILI) data. ILI is the proportion of patients who meet a healthcare provider and who display flu like symptoms, and ILI data has been available at the state and national level since the 2010 flu season [CDC, 20...
2010
-
[2022]
Anne Ewing, Elizabeth C Lee, C´ecile Viboud, and Shweta Bansal
URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01517-w . Anne Ewing, Elizabeth C Lee, C´ecile Viboud, and Shweta Bansal. Contact, travel, and transmission: the impact of winter holidays on influenza dynamics in the United States. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 215(5):732–739,
-
[2023]
To better align with the flu behavior, week 1 is set as the first week of August and week 52 or 53 is the last week in July of the following year
For most seasons there are 52 weeks listed, but for the 2010, 2015, and 2021 seasons there are 53 weeks because those seasons had 53 Sundays. To better align with the flu behavior, week 1 is set as the first week of August and week 52 or 53 is the last week in July of the foll...
2010
-
[2024]
R package version 0.7.1, https://discourse.mc-stan.org. Roberto C Garza, Ricardo Basurto-D´avila, Ismael R Ortega-Sanchez, Luis Oreste Carlino, Martin I Meltzer, Rachel Albalak, Karina Balbuena, Pablo Orellano, Marc-Alain Widdowson, and Francisco Averhoff. Effect of winter sch...
2005
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.