Skip to main content
. 2016 May 11;6:25732. doi: 10.1038/srep25732

Table 1. Accuracy metrics between ARES and CDC’s ILI for all geographic regions, for the three flu seasons spanning 2012–2015.

Algorithm RMSE Rel. RMSE (%) Correlation
2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015
National
 GFT 2.16 0.39 0.36 62.73% 13.21% 12.31% 0.932 0.968 0.986
 Linear (univariate) 0.45 0.20 0.54 12.20% 9.00% 12.22% 0.996 0.985 0.986
 AR(2) 0.46 0.30 0.45 11.77% 9.53% 11.40% 0.940 0.940 0.937
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.10 0.09 0.17 4.15% 5.12% 4.62% 0.997 0.995 0.991
Region 1
 GFT 2.87 0.27 0.41 107.01% 21.20% 26.01% 0.789 0.881 0.951
 Linear (univariate) 0.51 0.22 0.36 25.54% 21.11% 20.80% 0.974 0.965 0.973
 AR(2) 0.40 0.23 0.32 18.35% 16.88% 17.31% 0.897 0.856 0.926
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.26 0.13 0.24 13.80% 10.44% 10.30% 0.964 0.974 0.960
Region 2
 GFT 2.22 0.64 1.18 46.54% 27.37% 38.64% 0.960 0.833 0.938
 Linear (univariate) 0.38 0.49 0.97 14.24% 20.16% 28.98% 0.983 0.877 0.940
 AR(2) 0.42 0.27 0.27 11.32% 10.12% 9.73% 0.949 0.922 0.937
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.30 0.19 0.23 9.22% 7.02% 8.61% 0.975 0.970 0.956
Region 3
 GFT 1.97 0.33 0.63 78.06% 24.18% 21.19% 0.914 0.984 0.983
 Linear (univariate) 0.90 0.36 0.81 22.97% 16.86% 20.51% 0.984 0.986 0.993
 AR(2) 0.71 0.24 0.88 19.97% 9.96% 16.59% 0.908 0.965 0.900
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.43 0.15 0.26 12.66% 6.57% 7.07% 0.976 0.988 0.992
Region 4
 GFT 1.84 0.36 0.45 58.99% 27.05% 16.71% 0.891 0.958 0.974
 Linear (univariate) 1.02 0.38 0.48 47.33% 34.95% 13.33% 0.979 0.973 0.986
 AR(2) 0.57 0.37 0.74 15.07% 15.21% 18.29% 0.924 0.941 0.903
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.21 0.16 0.27 8.70% 11.41% 9.18% 0.991 0.989 0.989
Region 5
 GFT 2.18 0.36 0.46 63.18% 20.44% 21.70% 0.887 0.962 0.970
 Linear (univariate) 0.28 0.43 0.53 13.58% 23.34% 15.22% 0.989 0.951 0.983
 AR(2) 0.46 0.33 0.42 12.86% 11.59% 11.95% 0.927 0.886 0.940
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.23 0.20 0.18 7.51% 8.22% 6.68% 0.985 0.964 0.991
Region 6
 GFT 3.74 0.75 1.49 66.62% 14.31% 25.84% 0.921 0.968 0.923
 Linear (univariate) 1.29 0.73 0.66 21.17% 18.53% 13.38% 0.965 0.964 0.963
 AR(2) 0.69 0.58 0.68 14.39% 10.38% 13.31% 0.937 0.949 0.935
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.49 0.34 0.57 10.26% 8.90% 10.31% 0.982 0.987 0.957
Region 7
 GFT 0.77 0.92 1.67 22.54% 85.14% 72.62% 0.942 0.968 0.695
 Linear (univariate) 0.63 2.43 1.95 29.42% 315.08% 124.32% 0.975 0.958 0.569
 AR(2) 0.59 0.24 0.55 16.87% 35.87% 22.99% 0.948 0.910 0.919
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.37 0.45 0.81 13.03% 54.24% 29.14% 0.981 0.935 0.827
Region 8
 GFT 0.84 0.39 0.43 27.29% 28.97% 24.09% 0.920 0.951 0.953
 Linear (univariate) 0.77 0.54 0.78 23.73% 20.16% 25.38% 0.973 0.942 0.894
 AR(2) 0.36 0.41 0.38 15.01% 19.64% 15.78% 0.961 0.843 0.930
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.24 0.21 0.26 10.09% 12.99% 11.47% 0.986 0.972 0.970
Region 9
 GFT 2.84 0.80 0.42 72.09% 24.93% 15.59% 0.922 0.946 0.934
 Linear (univariate) 0.43 0.38 0.29 19.28% 20.79% 13.37% 0.975 0.927 0.965
 AR(2) 0.37 0.29 0.35 11.92% 13.42% 10.82% 0.934 0.935 0.942
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.28 0.21 0.21 10.81% 10.57% 7.79% 0.970 0.971 0.981
Region 10
 GFT 2.85 0.73 0.50 181.88% 91.96% 30.46% 0.866 0.953 0.955
 Linear (univariate) 0.75 0.49 0.48 125.35% 82.45% 31.04% 0.737 0.976 0.908
 AR(2) 0.49 0.57 0.41 37.20% 30.14% 27.99% 0.867 0.881 0.920
 SVM (linear) + AR(2) 0.42 0.46 0.34 26.92% 21.07% 21.54% 0.904 0.922 0.947

For comparison purposes, we have included GFT’s historical predictions, and the two baseline models: dynamic linear regression (mapping athenahealth’s ILI onto CDC’s ILI), and a two term autoregressive model, AR(2). Values with best performance appear in bold face.