Our ability to forecast epidemics far into the future is constrained by the many complexities of disease systems. Realistic longer-term projections may, however, be possible under well-defined scenarios that specify the future state of critical epidemic drivers. Since December 2020, the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub (SMH) has convened multiple modeling teams to make months ahead projections of SARS-CoV-2 burden, totaling nearly 1.8 million national and state-level projections. Here, we find SMH performance varied widely as a function of both scenario validity and model calibration. We show scenarios remained close to reality for 22 weeks on average before the arrival of unanticipated SARS-CoV-2 variants invalidated key assumptions. An ensemble of participating models that preserved variation between models (using the linear opinion pool method) was consistently more reliable than any single model in periods of valid scenario assumptions, while projection interval coverage was near target levels. SMH projections were used to guide pandemic response, illustrating the value of collaborative hubs for longer-term scenario projections.

Policymakers must make management decisions despite incomplete knowledge and conflicting model projections. Little guidance exists for the rapid, representative, and unbiased collection of policy-relevant scientific input from independent modeling teams. Integrating approaches from decision analysis, expert judgment, and model aggregation, we convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate COVID-19 reopening strategies for a mid-sized United States county early in the pandemic. Projections from seventeen distinct models were inconsistent in magnitude but highly consistent in ranking interventions. The 6-mo-ahead aggregate projections were well in line with observed outbreaks in mid-sized US counties. The aggregate results showed that up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening, while workplace restrictions reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Rankings of interventions were consistent across public health objectives, but there was a strong trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures, and no win-win intermediate reopening strategies were identified. Between-model variation was high; the aggregate results thus provide valuable risk quantification for decision making. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of management interventions in any setting where models are used to inform decision making. This case study demonstrated the utility of our approach and was one of several multimodel efforts that laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which has provided multiple rounds of real-time scenario projections for situational awareness and decision making to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since December 2020.

Background: Effectively and efficiently diagnosing patients who have COVID-19 with the accurate clinical type of the disease is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for the patients as well as to reduce the risk of overloading the health care system. Currently, severe and nonsevere COVID-19 types are differentiated by only a few features, which do not comprehensively characterize the complicated pathological, physiological, and immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the different disease types. In addition, these type-defining features may not be readily testable at the time of diagnosis. Objective: In this study, we aimed to use a machine learning approach to understand COVID-19 more comprehensively, accurately differentiate severe and nonsevere COVID-19 clinical types based on multiple medical features, and provide reliable predictions of the clinical type of the disease. Methods: For this study, we recruited 214 confirmed patients with nonsevere COVID-19 and 148 patients with severe COVID-19. The clinical characteristics (26 features) and laboratory test results (26 features) upon admission were acquired as two input modalities. Exploratory analyses demonstrated that these features differed substantially between two clinical types. Machine learning random forest models based on all the features in each modality as well as on the top 5 features in each modality combined were developed and validated to differentiate COVID-19 clinical types. Results: Using clinical and laboratory results independently as input, the random forest models achieved >90% and >95% predictive accuracy, respectively. The importance scores of the input features were further evaluated, and the top 5 features from each modality were identified (age, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, gender, and diabetes for the clinical features modality, and dimerized plasmin fragment D, high sensitivity troponin I, absolute neutrophil count, interleukin 6, and lactate dehydrogenase for the laboratory testing modality, in descending order). Using these top 10 multimodal features as the only input instead of all 52 features combined, the random forest model was able to achieve 97% predictive accuracy. Conclusions: Our findings shed light on how the human body reacts to SARS-CoV-2 infection as a unit and provide insights on effectively evaluating the disease severity of patients with COVID-19 based on more common medical features when gold standard features are not available. We suggest that clinical information can be used as an initial screening tool for self-evaluation and triage, while laboratory test results should be applied when accuracy is the priority.

Background: Effectively identifying patients with COVID-19 using nonpolymerase chain reaction biomedical data is critical for achieving optimal clinical outcomes. Currently, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding in various biomedical features and appropriate analytical approaches for enabling the early detection and effective diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Objective: We aimed to combine low-dimensional clinical and lab testing data, as well as high-dimensional computed tomography (CT) imaging data, to accurately differentiate between healthy individuals, patients with COVID-19, and patients with non-COVID viral pneumonia, especially at the early stage of infection. Methods: In this study, we recruited 214 patients with nonsevere COVID-19, 148 patients with severe COVID-19, 198 noninfected healthy participants, and 129 patients with non-COVID viral pneumonia. The participants’ clinical information (ie, 23 features), lab testing results (ie, 10 features), and CT scans upon admission were acquired and used as 3 input feature modalities. To enable the late fusion of multimodal features, we constructed a deep learning model to extract a 10-feature high-level representation of CT scans. We then developed 3 machine learning models (ie, k-nearest neighbor, random forest, and support vector machine models) based on the combined 43 features from all 3 modalities to differentiate between the following 4 classes: nonsevere, severe, healthy, and viral pneumonia. Results: Multimodal features provided substantial performance gain from the use of any single feature modality. All 3 machine learning models had high overall prediction accuracy (95.4%-97.7%) and high class-specific prediction accuracy (90.6%-99.9%). Conclusions: Compared to the existing binary classification benchmarks that are often focused on single-feature modality, this study’s hybrid deep learning-machine learning framework provided a novel and effective breakthrough for clinical applications. Our findings, which come from a relatively large sample size, and analytical workflow will supplement and assist with clinical decision support for current COVID-19 diagnostic methods and other clinical applications with high-dimensional multimodal biomedical features.

Reliable monitoring of the invasive Halyomorpha halys abundance, phenology and geographic distribution is critical for its management. Halyomorpha halys adult and nymphal captures on clear sticky traps and in black pyramid traps were compared in 18 states across the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Pacific Northwest and Western regions of the United States. Traps were baited with commercial lures containing the H. halys pheromone and synergist, and deployed at field sites bordering agricultural or urban locations with H. halys host plants. Nymphal and adult captures in pyramid traps were greater than those on sticky traps, but captures were positively correlated between the two trap types within each region and during the early-, mid- and late season across all sites. Sites were further classified as having a low, moderate or high relative H. halys density and again showed positive correlations between captures for the two trap types for nymphs and adults. Among regions, the greatest adult captures were recorded in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic on pyramid and sticky traps, respectively, with lowest captures recorded in the West. Nymphal captures, while lower than adult captures, were greatest in the Southeast and lowest in the West. Nymphal and adult captures were, generally, greatest during July–August and September–October, respectively. Trapping data were compared with available phenological models showing comparable population peaks at most locations. Results demonstrated that sticky traps offer a simpler alternative to pyramid traps, but both can be reliable tools to monitor H. halys in different geographical locations with varying population densities throughout the season.