English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Forecasting of COVID-19 cases daily and weekly has been one of the challenges posed to governments and the health sector globally. To facilitate informed public health decisions, the concerned parties rely on short-term daily projections generated via predictive modeling. We calibrate stochastic variants of growth models and the standard susceptible-infectious-removed model into 1 Bayesian framework to evaluate and compare their short-term forecasts.    Results  We implement rolling-origin cross-validation to compare the short-term forecasting performance of the stochastic epidemiological models and an autoregressive moving average model across 20 countries that had the most confirmed COVID-19 cases as of August 22, 2020.    Conclusion  None of the models proved to be a gold standard across all regions, while all outperformed the autoregressive moving average model in terms of the accuracy of forecast and interpretability.

Evaluating short-term forecasting of COVID-19 cases among different epidemiological models under a Bayesian framework