ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Ensemble forecasts of COVID-19 activity to support Australia's pandemic response: 2020-22.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries used real-time data analyses, predictive modelling, and COVID-19 case forecasts, to incorporate emerging evidence into their decisions. In Australia, national and jurisdictional public health responses were informed by weekly ensemble forecasts of daily COVID-19 case counts for each of Australia's eight states and territories, produced by a consortium of researchers under contract with the Australian Government. As members of this consortium, who produced these forecasts at each week, we now retrospectively evaluate approximately 100,000 predictions for daily case counts 1-28 days into the future, generated between July 2020 and December 2022, and report here (a) how the ensemble forecasts supported public health responses; (b) how well the ensemble forecast performed, relative to the forecasts produced by each contributing team; and (c) how we refined our reporting and visualisations to ensure that outputs were interpreted appropriately. Similar to COVID-19 forecasting studies in other countries, we found that the ensemble forecast consistently out-performed the individual model forecasts, and that performance was lowest when there were rapid changes in the epidemiology, such as periods around epidemic peaks. Our consortium's internal peer-review process allowed us to explain how features of each ensemble forecast related to the design of the individual models, and this helped enable public health stakeholders to interpret the forecasts appropriately. Ultimately, our forecasts provided information that supported public health responses during periods of different policy goals, and over a wide range of epidemic scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.