Comparative study of Bayesian and frequentist methods for epidemic forecasting: Insights from simulated and historical data

Accurate epidemic forecasting is critical for effective public health interventions. This study compares Bayesian and Frequentist estimation frameworks within deterministic compartmental epidemic models, focusing on nonlinear least squares (NLS) optimization versus Bayesian inference assuming a normal likelihood and using MCMC sampling in Stan. Rather than evaluating all methodological variants, we assess forecasting performance under a shared modeling structure and error assumption. The findings apply to specific implementations of both approaches. Performance is evaluated using simulated datasets (with <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:math> and 1.5) and historical outbreaks, including the 1918 influenza pandemic, the 1896-1897 Bombay plague epidemic, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Metrics include mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), weighted interval score (WIS), and 95% prediction interval coverage. Forecasting performance varies by epidemic phase and dataset; no method consistently dominates. The Frequentist method performs well at the peak in simulations and in the post-peak phases of real outbreaks but is less accurate pre-peak. Bayesian methods, especially those with uniform priors, offer higher predictive accuracy early in epidemics and stronger uncertainty quantification when data are sparse or noisy. Frequentist methods often yield more accurate point forecasts with lower MAE, RMSE, and WIS, though their interval estimates are less robust. We also discuss the influence of prior choice and the effects of longer forecasting horizons on convergence and computational efficiency. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting estimation strategies suited to epidemic phase and data quality, aiding forecast-based decision-making.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2025-10-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802251387451
Primary Topic
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative study of Bayesian and frequentist methods for epidemic forecasting: Insights from simulated and historical data

Ruiyan Luo, Gerardo Chowell, Hossein Karami, Pejman Sanaei
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
article

Comparative study of Bayesian and frequentist methods for epidemic forecasting: Insights from simulated and historical data

Ruiyan Luo, Gerardo Chowell, Hossein Karami, Pejman Sanaei
article en

Abstract

Accurate epidemic forecasting is critical for effective public health interventions. This study compares Bayesian and Frequentist estimation frameworks within deterministic compartmental epidemic models, focusing on nonlinear least squares (NLS) optimization versus Bayesian inference assuming a normal likelihood and using MCMC sampling in Stan. Rather than evaluating all methodological variants, we assess forecasting performance under a shared modeling structure and error assumption. The findings apply to specific implementations of both approaches. Performance is evaluated using simulated datasets (with <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:math> and 1.5) and historical outbreaks, including the 1918 influenza pandemic, the 1896-1897 Bombay plague epidemic, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Metrics include mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), weighted interval score (WIS), and 95% prediction interval coverage. Forecasting performance varies by epidemic phase and dataset; no method consistently dominates. The Frequentist method performs well at the peak in simulations and in the post-peak phases of real outbreaks but is less accurate pre-peak. Bayesian methods, especially those with uniform priors, offer higher predictive accuracy early in epidemics and stronger uncertainty quantification when data are sparse or noisy. Frequentist methods often yield more accurate point forecasts with lower MAE, RMSE, and WIS, though their interval estimates are less robust. We also discuss the influence of prior choice and the effects of longer forecasting horizons on convergence and computational efficiency. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting estimation strategies suited to epidemic phase and data quality, aiding forecast-based decision-making.

Statistical Methods in Medical ResearchVol. 35(1)
Georgia State University (US), Kyung Hee University (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.