Evaluating Forecasting Methods

Ideally, forecasting methods should be evaluated in the situations for which they will be used. Underlying the evaluation procedure is the need to test methods against reasonable alternatives. Evaluation consists of four steps: testing assumptions, testing data and methods, replicating outputs, and assessing outputs. Most principles for testing forecasting methods are based on commonly accepted methodological procedures, such as to prespecify criteria or to obtain a large sample of forecast errors. However, forecasters often violate such principles, even in academic studies. Some principles might be surprising, such as do not use R-square, do not use Mean Square Error, and do not use the within-sample fit of the model to select the most accurate time-series model. A checklist of 32 principles is provided to help in systematically evaluating forecasting methods

Innate immunity and remodelling

A wide variety of cardiac disease states can induce remodelling and lead to the functional consequence of heart failure. These complex disease states involve a plethora of parallel signal transduction events, which may be associated with tissue injury or tissue repair. Innate immunity is activated in hearts injured in different ways, evident as cytokine release from the heart, activation of toll-like receptors involved in recognizing danger, and activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor kappa B. Nuclear factor kappa B regulates gene programmes involved in inflammation as well as the resolution of inflammation. The impact of this is an enigma; while cytokines, toll-like receptors, and nuclear factor kappa B appear to elicit myocardial protection in studies of preconditioning, the literature strongly indicates a detrimental role for activation of innate immunity in studies of acute ischaemia–reperfusion injury. The impact of activation of cardiac innate immunity on the long-term outcome in in vivo models of hypertrophy and remodelling is less clear, with conflicting results as to whether it is beneficial or detrimental. More research using genetically engineered mice as tools, different models of evoking remodelling, and long-term follow-up is required for us to conclude whether activation of the innate immune system is good, bad, or unimportant in chronic injury models