James D Munday, Alicia Rosello, John Edmunds, Sebastian Funk
{"title":"实时预测埃博拉疫情的空间传播:比较数学模型和专家的预测。","authors":"James D Munday, Alicia Rosello, John Edmunds, Sebastian Funk","doi":"10.7554/eLife.98005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ebola virus disease outbreaks can often be controlled, but require rapid response efforts frequently with profound operational complexities. Mathematical models can be used to support response planning, but it is unclear if models improve the prior understanding of experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed repeated surveys of Ebola response experts during an outbreak. From each expert, we elicited the probability of cases exceeding four thresholds between 2 and 20 cases in a set of small geographical areas in the following calendar month. We compared the predictive performance of these forecasts to those of two mathematical models with different spatial interaction components.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An ensemble combining the forecasts of all experts performed similarly to the two models. Experts showed stronger bias than models forecasting two-case threshold exceedance. Experts and models both performed better when predicting exceedance of higher thresholds. The models also tended to be better at risk-ranking areas than experts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results support the use of models in outbreak contexts, offering a convenient and scalable route to a quantified situational awareness, which can provide confidence in or to call into question existing advice of experts. There could be value in combining expert opinion and modelled forecasts to support the response to future outbreaks.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This study was partly funded by the Department of Health and Social Care using UK Aid funding 47 and is managed by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (VEEPED: PR-OD-1017- 48 20002; AR and WJE). This study was partly funded by the Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z : JDM 49 and SF). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily 50 those of the funders.</p>","PeriodicalId":11640,"journal":{"name":"eLife","volume":"13 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12513718/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forecasting the spatial spread of an Ebola epidemic in real time: Comparing predictions of mathematical models and experts.\",\"authors\":\"James D Munday, Alicia Rosello, John Edmunds, Sebastian Funk\",\"doi\":\"10.7554/eLife.98005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ebola virus disease outbreaks can often be controlled, but require rapid response efforts frequently with profound operational complexities. Mathematical models can be used to support response planning, but it is unclear if models improve the prior understanding of experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed repeated surveys of Ebola response experts during an outbreak. From each expert, we elicited the probability of cases exceeding four thresholds between 2 and 20 cases in a set of small geographical areas in the following calendar month. We compared the predictive performance of these forecasts to those of two mathematical models with different spatial interaction components.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An ensemble combining the forecasts of all experts performed similarly to the two models. Experts showed stronger bias than models forecasting two-case threshold exceedance. Experts and models both performed better when predicting exceedance of higher thresholds. The models also tended to be better at risk-ranking areas than experts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results support the use of models in outbreak contexts, offering a convenient and scalable route to a quantified situational awareness, which can provide confidence in or to call into question existing advice of experts. There could be value in combining expert opinion and modelled forecasts to support the response to future outbreaks.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This study was partly funded by the Department of Health and Social Care using UK Aid funding 47 and is managed by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (VEEPED: PR-OD-1017- 48 20002; AR and WJE). This study was partly funded by the Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z : JDM 49 and SF). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily 50 those of the funders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11640,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"eLife\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12513718/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"eLife\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.98005\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eLife","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.98005","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:埃博拉病毒病的暴发通常可以得到控制,但需要作出快速反应努力,这往往具有深刻的操作复杂性。数学模型可用于支持响应计划,但尚不清楚模型是否能提高专家的先验理解。方法:在疫情爆发期间,我们对埃博拉应对专家进行了反复调查。从每位专家那里,我们得出了下一个日历月在一组小地理区域中病例超过2至20例之间四个阈值的概率。我们将这些预测结果与两种具有不同空间相互作用分量的数学模型的预测结果进行了比较。结果:综合了所有专家的预测,结果与两个模型相似。专家们表现出比预测两例阈值超出的模型更强的偏差。专家和模型在预测超出较高阈值时都表现得更好。这些模型在风险排序方面也往往比专家做得更好。结论:我们的研究结果支持在疫情背景下使用模型,提供了一种方便和可扩展的量化态势感知途径,可以为专家的现有建议提供信心或提出质疑。将专家意见和模拟预测结合起来,以支持对未来疫情的应对,可能是有价值的。经费:本研究部分由卫生和社会保障部利用联合王国援助资金47资助,由国家卫生和保健研究所管理(veped: PR-OD-1017- 48 2002; AR和WJE)。本研究部分由惠康基金会资助(210758/Z/18/Z: JDM 49 and SF)。本出版物中表达的观点仅代表作者的观点,不一定代表资助者的观点。
Forecasting the spatial spread of an Ebola epidemic in real time: Comparing predictions of mathematical models and experts.
Background: Ebola virus disease outbreaks can often be controlled, but require rapid response efforts frequently with profound operational complexities. Mathematical models can be used to support response planning, but it is unclear if models improve the prior understanding of experts.
Methods: We performed repeated surveys of Ebola response experts during an outbreak. From each expert, we elicited the probability of cases exceeding four thresholds between 2 and 20 cases in a set of small geographical areas in the following calendar month. We compared the predictive performance of these forecasts to those of two mathematical models with different spatial interaction components.
Results: An ensemble combining the forecasts of all experts performed similarly to the two models. Experts showed stronger bias than models forecasting two-case threshold exceedance. Experts and models both performed better when predicting exceedance of higher thresholds. The models also tended to be better at risk-ranking areas than experts.
Conclusions: Our results support the use of models in outbreak contexts, offering a convenient and scalable route to a quantified situational awareness, which can provide confidence in or to call into question existing advice of experts. There could be value in combining expert opinion and modelled forecasts to support the response to future outbreaks.
Funding: This study was partly funded by the Department of Health and Social Care using UK Aid funding 47 and is managed by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (VEEPED: PR-OD-1017- 48 20002; AR and WJE). This study was partly funded by the Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z : JDM 49 and SF). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily 50 those of the funders.
期刊介绍:
eLife is a distinguished, not-for-profit, peer-reviewed open access scientific journal that specializes in the fields of biomedical and life sciences. eLife is known for its selective publication process, which includes a variety of article types such as:
Research Articles: Detailed reports of original research findings.
Short Reports: Concise presentations of significant findings that do not warrant a full-length research article.
Tools and Resources: Descriptions of new tools, technologies, or resources that facilitate scientific research.
Research Advances: Brief reports on significant scientific advancements that have immediate implications for the field.
Scientific Correspondence: Short communications that comment on or provide additional information related to published articles.
Review Articles: Comprehensive overviews of a specific topic or field within the life sciences.