Search

Supplementary Table S1 repeats the longitudinal association between annual increase in BMI and annual change in volumetric breast density provided in Table 4 of the manuscript with additional adjustment for change in total breast volume.

Background: Understanding how changes in body mass index (BMI) relate to changes in mammographic density is necessary to evaluate adjustment for BMI gain/loss in studies of change in density and breast cancer risk. Increase in BMI has been associated with a decrease in percent density, but the effect on change in absolute dense area or volume is unclear.Methods: We examined the association between change in BMI and change in volumetric breast density among 24,556 women in the San Francisco Mammography Registry from 2007 to 2013. Height and weight were self-reported at the time of mammography. Breast density was assessed using single x-ray absorptiometry measurements. Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between BMI and dense volume (DV), non-dense volume (NDV), and percent dense volume (PDV) were assessed using multivariable linear regression models, adjusted for demographics, risk factors, and reproductive history.Results: In cross-sectional analysis, BMI was positively associated with DV [β, 2.95 cm3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.69–3.21] and inversely associated with PDV (β, −2.03%; 95% CI, −2.09, −1.98). In contrast, increasing BMI was longitudinally associated with a decrease in both DV (β, −1.01 cm3; 95% CI, −1.59, −0.42) and PDV (β, −1.17%; 95% CI, −1.31, −1.04). These findings were consistent for both pre- and postmenopausal women.Conclusion: Our findings support an inverse association between change in BMI and change in PDV. The association between increasing BMI and decreasing DV requires confirmation.Impact: Longitudinal studies of PDV and breast cancer risk, or those using PDV as an indicator of breast cancer risk, should evaluate adjustment for change in BMI. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(11); 1724–30. ©2015 AACR.

Identifying data streams that can consistently improve the accuracy of epidemiological forecasting models is challenging. Using models designed to predict daily state-level hospital admissions due to COVID-19 in California and Massachusetts, we investigated whether incorporating COVID-19 case data systematically improved forecast accuracy. Additionally, we considered whether using case data aggregated by date of test or by date of report from a surveillance system made a difference to the forecast accuracy. Evaluating forecast accuracy in a test period, after first having selected the best-performing methods in a validation period, we found that overall the difference in accuracy between approaches was small, especially at forecast horizons of less than two weeks. However, forecasts from models using cases aggregated by test date showed lower accuracy at longer horizons and at key moments in the pandemic, such as the peak of the Omicron wave in January 2022. Overall, these results highlight the challenge of finding a modeling approach that can generate accurate forecasts of outbreak trends both during periods of relative stability and during periods that show rapid growth or decay of transmission rates. While COVID-19 case counts seem to be a natural choice to help predict COVID-19 hospitalizations, in practice any benefits we observed were small and inconsistent.

Background Healthcare personnel (HCP) knowledge and attitudes toward infection control measures are important determinants of practices that can protect them from transmission of infectious diseases. Methods Healthcare personnel were recruited from Emergency Departments and outpatient clinics at seven sites. They completed knowledge surveys at the beginning and attitude surveys at the beginning and end of each season of participation. Attitudes toward infection prevention and control measures, especially medical masks and N95 respirators, were compared. The proportion of participants who correctly identified all components of an infection control bundle for seven clinical scenarios was calculated. Results The proportion of participants in the medical mask group who reported at least one reason to avoid using medical masks fell from 88.5% on the pre-season survey to 39.6% on the post-season survey (odds ratio [OR] for preseason vs. postseason 0.11, 95% CI 0.10-0.14). Among those wearing N95 respirators, the proportion fell from 87.9% to 53.6% (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.21-0.28). Participants correctly identified all components of the infection control bundle for 4.9% to 38.5% of scenarios. Conclusions Attitudes toward medical masks and N95 respirators improved significantly between the beginning and end of each season. The proportion of HCP who correctly identified the infection control precautions needed for clinical scenarios was low, but it improved over successive years of participation in the study.

eLife 12, e81916 (2023). doi:10.7554/eLife.81916, Background:Short-term forecasts of infectious disease burden can contribute to situational awareness and aid capacity planning. Based on best practice in other fields and recent insights in infectious disease epidemiology, one can maximise the predictive performance of such forecasts if multiple models are combined into an ensemble. Here, we report on the performance of ensembles in predicting COVID-19 cases and deaths across Europe between 08 March 2021 and 07 March 2022.Methods:We used open-source tools to develop a public European COVID-19 Forecast Hub. We invited groups globally to contribute weekly forecasts for COVID-19 cases and deaths reported by a standardised source for 32 countries over the next 1–4 weeks. Teams submitted forecasts from March 2021 using standardised quantiles of the predictive distribution. Each week we created an ensemble forecast, where each predictive quantile was calculated as the equally-weighted average (initially the mean and then from 26th July the median) of all individual models’ predictive quantiles. We measured the performance of each model using the relative Weighted Interval Score (WIS), comparing models’ forecast accuracy relative to all other models. We retrospectively explored alternative methods for ensemble forecasts, including weighted averages based on models’ past predictive performance.Results:Over 52 weeks, we collected forecasts from 48 unique models. We evaluated 29 models’ forecast scores in comparison to the ensemble model. We found a weekly ensemble had a consistently strong performance across countries over time. Across all horizons and locations, the ensemble performed better on relative WIS than 83% of participating models’ forecasts of incident cases (with a total N=886 predictions from 23 unique models), and 91% of participating models’ forecasts of deaths (N=763 predictions from 20 models). Across a 1–4 week time horizon, ensemble performance declined with longer forecast periods when forecasting cases, but remained stable over 4 weeks for incident death forecasts. In every forecast across 32 countries, the ensemble outperformed most contributing models when forecasting either cases or deaths, frequently outperforming all of its individual component models. Among several choices of ensemble methods we found that the most influential and best choice was to use a median average of models instead of using the mean, regardless of methods of weighting component forecast models.Conclusions:Our results support the use of combining forecasts from individual models into an ensemble in order to improve predictive performance across epidemiological targets and populations during infectious disease epidemics. Our findings further suggest that median ensemble methods yield better predictive performance more than ones based on means. Our findings also highlight that forecast consumers should place more weight on incident death forecasts than incident case forecasts at forecast horizons greater than 2 weeks., Published by eLife Sciences Publications, Cambridge

Objective:The implementation of mandatory influenza vaccination policies among healthcare personnel (HCP) is controversial. Thus, we examined the affect of mandatory influenza vaccination policies among HCP working in outpatient settings.Setting:Four Veterans’ Affairs (VA) health systems and three non-VA medical centers.Methods:We analyzed rates of influenza and other viral causes of respiratory infections among HCP working in outpatient sites at 4 VA health systems without mandatory influenza vaccination policies and 3 non-VA health systems with mandatory influenza vaccination policies.Results:Influenza vaccination was associated with a decreased risk of influenza (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13–0.22) but an increased risk of other respiratory viral infections (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02–1.57).Conclusions:Our fitted regression models suggest that if influenza vaccination rates in clinics where vaccination was not mandated had equalled those where vaccine was mandated, HCP influenza infections would have been reduced by 52.1% (95% CI, 51.3%–53.0%). These observations, their possible causes, and additional strategies to reduce influenza and other viral respiratory illnesses among HCP working in ambulatory clinics warrant further investigation.

After a period of rapidly declining U.S. COVID-19 incidence during January-March 2021, increases occurred in several jurisdictions (1,2) despite the rapid rollout of a large-scale vaccination program. This increase coincided with the spread of more transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, including B.1.1.7 (1,3) and relaxation of COVID-19 prevention strategies such as those for businesses, large-scale gatherings, and educational activities. To provide long-term projections of potential trends in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub teams used a multiple-model approach comprising six models to assess the potential course of COVID-19 in the United States across four scenarios with different vaccination coverage rates and effectiveness estimates and strength and implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) (public health policies, such as physical distancing and masking) over a 6-month period (April-September 2021) using data available through March 27, 2021 (4). Among the four scenarios, an accelerated decline in NPI adherence (which encapsulates NPI mandates and population behavior) was shown to undermine vaccination-related gains over the subsequent 2-3 months and, in combination with increased transmissibility of new variants, could lead to surges in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. A sharp decline in cases was projected by July 2021, with a faster decline in the high-vaccination scenarios. High vaccination rates and compliance with public health prevention measures are essential to control the COVID-19 pandemic and to prevent surges in hospitalizations and deaths in the coming months.

Forecasting has emerged as an important component of informed, data-driven decision-making in a wide array of fields. We introduce a new data model for probabilistic predictions that encompasses a wide range of forecasting settings. This framework clearly defines the constituent parts of a probabilistic forecast and proposes one approach for representing these data elements. The data model is implemented in Zoltar, a new software application that stores forecasts using the data model and provides standardized API access to the data. In one real-time case study, an instance of the Zoltar web application was used to store, provide access to, and evaluate real-time forecast data on the order of 108 rows, provided by over 40 international research teams from academia and industry making forecasts of the COVID-19 outbreak in the US. Tools and data infrastructure for probabilistic forecasts, such as those introduced here, will play an increasingly important role in ensuring that future forecasting research adheres to a strict set of rigorous and reproducible standards.

We developed a contactless syndromic surveillance platform FluSense that aims to expand the current paradigm of influenza-like illness (ILI) surveillance by capturing crowd-level bio-clinical signals directly related to physical symptoms of ILI from hospital waiting areas in an unobtrusive and privacy-sensitive manner. FluSense consists of a novel edge-computing sensor system, models and data processing pipelines to track crowd behaviors and influenza-related indicators, such as coughs, and to predict daily ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza caseloads. FluSense uses a microphone array and a thermal camera along with a neural computing engine to passively and continuously characterize speech and cough sounds along with changes in crowd density on the edge in a real-time manner. We conducted an IRB-approved 7 month-long study from December 10, 2018 to July 12, 2019 where we deployed FluSense in four public waiting areas within the hospital of a large university. During this period, the FluSense platform collected and analyzed more than 350,000 waiting room thermal images and 21 million non-speech audio samples from the hospital waiting areas. FluSense can accurately predict daily patient counts with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.95. We also compared signals from FluSense with the gold standard laboratory-confirmed influenza case data obtained in the same facility and found that our sensor-based features are strongly correlated with laboratory-confirmed influenza trends.

The U.S. COVID-19 Forecast Hub aggregates forecasts of the short-term burden of COVID-19 in the United States from many contributing teams. We study methods for building an ensemble that combines forecasts from these teams. These experiments have informed the ensemble methods used by the Hub. To be most useful to policy makers, ensemble forecasts must have stable performance in the presence of two key characteristics of the component forecasts: (1) occasional misalignment with the reported data, and (2) instability in the relative performance of component forecasters over time. Our results indicate that in the presence of these challenges, an untrained and robust approach to ensembling using an equally weighted median of all component forecasts is a good choice to support public health decision makers. In settings where some contributing forecasters have a stable record of good performance, trained ensembles that give those forecasters higher weight can also be helpful.

Background: The COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub convened nine modeling teams to project the impact of expanding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to children aged 5–11 years on COVID-19 burden and resilience against variant strains. Methods: Teams contributed state- and national-level weekly projections of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States from September 12, 2021 to March 12, 2022. Four scenarios covered all combinations of 1) vaccination (or not) of children aged 5–11 years (starting November 1, 2021), and 2) emergence (or not) of a variant more transmissible than the Delta variant (emerging November 15, 2021). Individual team projections were linearly pooled. The effect of childhood vaccination on overall and age-specific outcomes was estimated using meta-analyses. Findings: Assuming that a new variant would not emerge, all-age COVID-19 outcomes were projected to decrease nationally through mid-March 2022. In this setting, vaccination of children 5–11 years old was associated with reductions in projections for all-age cumulative cases (7.2%, mean incidence ratio [IR] 0.928, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.880–0.977), hospitalizations (8.7%, mean IR 0.913, 95% CI 0.834–0.992), and deaths (9.2%, mean IR 0.908, 95% CI 0.797–1.020) compared with scenarios without childhood vaccination. Vaccine benefits increased for scenarios including a hypothesized more transmissible variant, assuming similar vaccine effectiveness. Projected relative reductions in cumulative outcomes were larger for children than for the entire population. State-level variation was observed. Interpretation: Given the scenario assumptions (defined before the emergence of Omicron), expanding vaccination to children 5–11 years old would provide measurable direct benefits, as well as indirect benefits to the all-age U.S. population, including resilience to more transmissible variants. Funding: Various (see acknowledgments).

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents a large risk to healthcare personnel (HCP). Quantifying the risk of coronavirus infection associated with workplace activities is an urgent need. Methods We assessed the association of worker characteristics, occupational roles and behaviors, and participation in procedures with the risk of endemic coronavirus infection among HCP who participated in the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT), a cluster randomized trial to assess personal protective equipment to prevent respiratory infections and illness conducted from 2011 to 2016. Results Among 4689 HCP seasons, we detected coronavirus infection in 387 (8%). HCP who participated in an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP) at least once during the viral respiratory season were 105% (95% confidence interval, 21%–240%) more likely to be diagnosed with a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection. Younger individuals, those who saw pediatric patients, and those with household members Conclusions Our analysis suggests that the risk of HCP becoming infected with an endemic coronavirus increases approximately 2-fold with exposures to AGPs. Our findings may be relevant to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, may differ from endemic coronaviruses in important ways. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01249625.

SummaryBackgroundInfectious disease modeling can serve as a powerful tool for science-based management of outbreaks, providing situational awareness and decision support for policy makers. Predictive modeling of an emerging disease is challenging due to limited knowledge on its epidemiological characteristics. For COVID-19, the prediction difficulty was further compounded by continuously changing policies, varying behavioral responses, poor availability and quality of crucial datasets, and the variable influence of different factors as the pandemic progresses. Due to these challenges, predictive modeling for COVID-19 has earned a mixed track record.MethodsWe provide a systematic review of prospective, data-driven modeling studies on population-level dynamics of COVID-19 in the US and conduct a quantitative assessment on crucial elements of modeling, with a focus on the aspects of modeling that are critical to make them useful for decision-makers. For each study, we documented the forecasting window, methodology, prediction target, datasets used, geographic resolution, whether they expressed quantitative uncertainty, the type of performance evaluation, and stated limitations. We present statistics for each category and discuss their distribution across the set of studies considered. We also address differences in these model features based on fields of study.FindingsOur initial search yielded 2,420 papers, of which 119 published papers and 17 preprints were included after screening. The most common datasets relied upon for COVID-19 modeling were counts of cases (93%) and deaths (62%), followed by mobility (26%), demographics (25%), hospitalizations (12%), and policy (12%). Our set of papers contained a roughly equal number of short-term (46%) and long-term (60%) predictions (defined as a prediction horizon longer than 4 weeks) and statistical (43%) versus compartmental (47%) methodologies. The target variables used were predominantly cases (89%), deaths (52%), hospitalizations (10%), and Rt (9%). We found that half of the papers in our analysis did not express quantitative uncertainty (50%). Among short-term prediction models, which can be fairly evaluated against truth data, 25% did not conduct any performance evaluation, and most papers were not evaluated over a timespan that includes varying epidemiological dynamics. The main categories of limitations stated by authors were disregarded factors (39%), data quality (28%), unknowable factors (26%), limitations specific to the methods used (22%), data availability (16%), and limited generalizability (8%). 36% of papers did not list any limitations in their discussion or conclusion section.InterpretationPublished COVID-19 models were found to be consistently lacking in some of the most important elements required for usability and translation, namely transparency, expressing uncertainty, performance evaluation, stating limitations, and communicating appropriate interpretations. Adopting the EPIFORGE 2020 guidelines would address these shortcomings and improve the consistency, reproducibility, comparability, and quality of epidemic forecasting reporting. We also discovered that most of the operational models that have been used in real-time to inform decision-making have not yet made it into the published literature, which highlights that the current publication system is not suited to the rapid information-sharing needs of outbreaks. Furthermore, data quality was identified to be one of the most important drivers of model performance, and a consistent limitation noted by the modeling community. The US public health infrastructure was not equipped to provide timely, high-quality COVID-19 data, which is required for effective modeling. Thus, a systematic infrastructure for improved data collection and sharing should be a major area of investment to support future pandemic preparedness.

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub ( https://covid19forecasthub.org/ ) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks.

Background The importance of infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction research is underscored by decades of communicable disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. Unlike other fields of medical research, such as clinical trials and systematic reviews, no reporting guidelines exist for reporting epidemic forecasting and prediction research despite their utility. We therefore developed the EPIFORGE checklist, a guideline for standardized reporting of epidemic forecasting research. Methods and findings We developed this checklist using a best-practice process for development of reporting guidelines, involving a Delphi process and broad consultation with an international panel of infectious disease modelers and model end users. The objectives of these guidelines are to improve the consistency, reproducibility, comparability, and quality of epidemic forecasting reporting. The guidelines are not designed to advise scientists on how to perform epidemic forecasting and prediction research, but rather to serve as a standard for reporting critical methodological details of such studies. Conclusions These guidelines have been submitted to the EQUATOR network, in addition to hosting by other dedicated webpages to facilitate feedback and journal endorsement., Simon Pollett and co-workers describe EPIFORGE, a guideline for reporting research on epidemic forecasting.

Infectious disease modelling can serve as a powerful tool for situational awareness and decision support for policy makers. However, COVID-19 modelling efforts faced many challenges, from poor data quality to changing policy and human behaviour. To extract practical insight from the large body of COVID-19 modelling literature available, we provide a narrative review with a systematic approach that quantitatively assessed prospective, data-driven modelling studies of COVID-19 in the USA. We analysed 136 papers, and focused on the aspects of models that are essential for decision makers. We have documented the forecasting window, methodology, prediction target, datasets used, and geographical resolution for each study. We also found that a large fraction of papers did not evaluate performance (25%), express uncertainty (50%), or state limitations (36%). To remedy some of these identified gaps, we recommend the adoption of the EPIFORGE 2020 model reporting guidelines and creating an information-sharing system that is suitable for fast-paced infectious disease outbreak science.

Academic researchers, government agencies, industry groups, and individuals have produced forecasts at an unprecedented scale during the COVID-19 pandemic. To leverage these forecasts, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partnered with an academic research lab at the University of Massachusetts Amherst to create the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub. Launched in April 2020, the Forecast Hub is a dataset with point and probabilistic forecasts of incident hospitalizations, incident cases, incident deaths, and cumulative deaths due to COVID-19 at national, state, and county levels in the United States. Included forecasts represent a variety of modeling approaches, data sources, and assumptions regarding the spread of COVID-19. The goal of this dataset is to establish a standardized and comparable set of short-term forecasts from modeling teams. These data can be used to develop ensemble models, communicate forecasts to the public, create visualizations, compare models, and inform policies regarding COVID-19 mitigation. These open-source data are available via download from GitHub, through an online API, and through R packages.

Seasonal influenza infects between 10 and 50 million people in the United States every year. Accurate forecasts of influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI) have been named by the CDC as an important tool to fight the damaging effects of these epidemics. Multi-model ensembles make accurate forecasts of seasonal influenza, but current operational ensemble forecasts are static: they require an abundance of past ILI data and assign fixed weights to component models at the beginning of a season, but do not update weights as new data on component model performance is collected. We propose an adaptive ensemble that (i) does not initially need data to combine forecasts and (ii) finds optimal weights which are updated week-by-week throughout the influenza season. We take a regularized likelihood approach and investigate this regularizer's ability to impact adaptive ensemble performance. After finding an optimal regularization value, we compare our adaptive ensemble to an equal-weighted and static ensemble. Applied to forecasts of short-term ILI incidence at the regional and national level, our adaptive model outperforms an equal-weighted ensemble and has similar performance to the static ensemble using only a fraction of the data available to the static ensemble. Needing no data at the beginning of an epidemic, an adaptive ensemble can quickly train and forecast an outbreak, providing a practical tool to public health officials looking for a forecast to conform to unique features of a specific season.

SummaryWhat is already known about this topic?The highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant has begun to cause increases in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in parts of the United States. With slowed vaccination uptake, this novel variant is expected to increase the risk of pandemic resurgence in the US in July—December 2021.What is added by this report?Data from nine mechanistic models project substantial resurgences of COVID-19 across the US resulting from the more transmissible Delta variant. These resurgences, which have now been observed in most states, were projected to occur across most of the US, coinciding with school and business reopening. Reaching higher vaccine coverage in July—December 2021 reduces the size and duration of the projected resurgence substantially. The expected impact of the outbreak is largely concentrated in a subset of states with lower vaccination coverage.What are the implications for public health practice?Renewed efforts to increase vaccination uptake are critical to limiting transmission and disease, particularly in states with lower current vaccination coverage. Reaching higher vaccination goals in the coming months can potentially avert 1.5 million cases and 21,000 deaths and improve the ability to safely resume social contacts, and educational and business activities. Continued or renewed non-pharmaceutical interventions, including masking, can also help limit transmission, particularly as schools and businesses reopen.

BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is an unprecedented global health crisis. The state of Massachusetts was especially impacted during the initial stages; however, the extent of asymptomatic transmission remains poorly understood due to limited asymptomatic testing in the “first wave.” To address this gap, a geographically representative and contact-free seroprevalence survey was conducted in July-August 2020, to estimate prior undetected SARS-CoV-2 infections.MethodsStudents, faculty, librarians and staff members at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were invited to participate in this study along with one member of their household in June 2020. Two separate sampling frames were generated from administrative lists: all undergraduates and their household members (primary sampling group) were randomly selected with probability proportional to population size. All staff, faculty, graduate students and librarians (secondary sampling group) were selected as a simple random sample. After informed consent and a socio-behavioral survey, participants were mailed test kits and asked to return self-collected dried blood spot (DBS) samples. Samples were analyzed via ELISA for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, and then IgM antibodies if IgG-positive. Seroprevalence estimates were adjusted for survey non-response. Binomial models were used to assess factors associated with seropositivity in both sample groups separately.ResultsApproximately 27,000 persons were invited via email to assess eligibility. Of the 1,001 individuals invited to participate in the study, 762 (76%) returned blood samples for analysis. In the primary sampling group 548 returned samples, of which 230 enrolled a household member. Within the secondary sampling group of 214 individuals, 79 enrolled a household member. In the primary sample group, 36 (4.6%) had IgG antibodies detected for an estimated weighed prevalence for this population of 5.3% (95% CI: 3.5 to 8.0). In the secondary sampling group, 10 (3.4%) of 292 individuals had IgG antibodies detected for an estimated adjusted prevalence of 4.0% (95% CI: 2.2 to 7.4). No samples were IgM positive. No association was found in either sample group between seropositivity and self-reported work duties or customer-facing hours. In the primary sampling group, self-reported febrile illness since Feb 2020, male sex, and minority race (Black or American Indian/Alaskan Native) were associated with seropositivity. No factors except geographic regions within the state were associated with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the secondary sampling group.InterpretationThis study provides insight into the seroprevalence of university-related populations and their household members across the state of Massachusetts during the summer of 2020 of the pandemic and helps to fill a critical gap in estimating the levels of sub-clinical and asymptomatic infection. Estimates like these can be used to calibrate models that estimate levels of population immunity over time to inform public health interventions and policy.FundingUMass Faculty Fund (A Lover); UMass Faculty Discretionary Funds (N Reich); UMass Institute for Applied Life Science “Midigrant” (#169076; A. Lover); and D. Alfandari was supported by grants from the USPHS (R24OD021485).

Significance Forecasts routinely provide critical information for dangerous weather events but not yet for epidemics. Researchers develop computational models that can be used for infectious disease forecasting, but forecasts have not been broadly compared or tested. We collaboratively compared forecasts from 16 teams for 8 y of dengue epidemics in Peru and Puerto Rico. The comparison highlighted components that forecasts did well (e.g., situational awareness late in the season) and those that need more work (e.g., early season forecasts). It also identified key facets to improve forecasts, including using multiple model ensemble approaches to improve overall forecast skill. Future infectious disease forecasting work can build on these findings and this framework to improve the skill and utility of forecasts., A wide range of research has promised new tools for forecasting infectious disease dynamics, but little of that research is currently being applied in practice, because tools do not address key public health needs, do not produce probabilistic forecasts, have not been evaluated on external data, or do not provide sufficient forecast skill to be useful. We developed an open collaborative forecasting challenge to assess probabilistic forecasts for seasonal epidemics of dengue, a major global public health problem. Sixteen teams used a variety of methods and data to generate forecasts for 3 epidemiological targets (peak incidence, the week of the peak, and total incidence) over 8 dengue seasons in Iquitos, Peru and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Forecast skill was highly variable across teams and targets. While numerous forecasts showed high skill for midseason situational awareness, early season skill was low, and skill was generally lowest for high incidence seasons, those for which forecasts would be most valuable. A comparison of modeling approaches revealed that average forecast skill was lower for models including biologically meaningful data and mechanisms and that both multimodel and multiteam ensemble forecasts consistently outperformed individual model forecasts. Leveraging these insights, data, and the forecasting framework will be critical to improve forecast skill and the application of forecasts in real time for epidemic preparedness and response. Moreover, key components of this project—integration with public health needs, a common forecasting framework, shared and standardized data, and open participation—can help advance infectious disease forecasting beyond dengue.

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multi-model ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of different research groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-week horizon 3-5 times larger than when predicting at a 1-week horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks. Significance Statement This paper compares the probabilistic accuracy of short-term forecasts of reported deaths due to COVID-19 during the first year and a half of the pandemic in the US. Results show high variation in accuracy between and within stand-alone models, and more consistent accuracy from an ensemble model that combined forecasts from all eligible models. This demonstrates that an ensemble model provided a reliable and comparatively accurate means of forecasting deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic that exceeded the performance of all of the models that contributed to it. This work strengthens the evidence base for synthesizing multiple models to support public health action.