Back

Evaluating the use of social contact data to produce age-specific forecasts of SARS-CoV-2 incidence

Munday, J. D.; Abbott, S.; Meakin, S.; Funk, S.

2022-12-03 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.12.02.22282935 medRxiv
Show abstract

Short-term forecasts can provide predictions of how an epidemic will change in the near future and form a central part of outbreak mitigation and control. Renewal-equation based models are increasingly popular. They infer key epidemiological parameters from historical epidemiological data and forecast future epidemic dynamics without requiring complex mechanistic assumptions. However, these models typically ignore interaction between age-groups, partly due to challenges in parameterising a time varying interaction matrix. Social contact data collected regularly by the CoMix survey during the COVID-19 epidemic in England, provide a means to inform interaction between age-groups in real-time. We developed an age-specific forecasting framework and applied it to two age-stratified time-series: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, estimated from a national infection and antibody prevalence survey; and, reported cases according to the UK national COVID-19 dashboard. Jointly fitting our model to social contact data from the CoMix study, we inferred a time-varying next generation matrix which we used to project infections and cases in the four weeks following each of 29 forecast dates between October 2021 and November 2022. We evaluated the forecasts using proper scoring rules and compared performance with three other models with alternative data and specifications alongside two naive baseline models. Overall, incorporating age-interaction improved forecasts of infections and the CoMix-data-informed model was the best performing model at time horizons between two and four weeks. However, this was not true when forecasting cases. We found that age-group-interaction was most important for predicting cases in children and older adults. The contact-data-informed models performed best during the winter months of 2020 - 2021, but performed comparatively poorly in other periods. We highlight challenges regarding the incorporation of contact data in forecasting and offer proposals as to how to extend and adapt our approach, which may lead to more successful forecasts in future.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
34.1%
2
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.3%
50% of probability mass above
3
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.3%
4
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.4%
5
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
7
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
8
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.8%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.5%
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.4%
12
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
13
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
15
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
16
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
17
Infectious Disease Modelling
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
19
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%
21
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
22
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
23
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%