MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034270607 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109209

Improving Google Flu Trends Estimates for the United States through Transformation

2014· article· en· W2034270607 on OpenAlexafffund
Leah J. Martin, Biying Xu, Yutaka Yasui

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsDemographySeasonal influenzaInfluenza seasonMedicineDisease controlStatisticsIncidence (geometry)GeographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MathematicsEnvironmental healthVirologyVaccinationDiseaseInternal medicineInfluenza vaccine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Google Flu Trends (GFT) uses Internet search queries in an effort to provide early warning of increases in influenza-like illness (ILI). In the United States, GFT estimates the percentage of physician visits related to ILI (%ILINet) reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, during the 2012-13 influenza season, GFT overestimated %ILINet by an appreciable amount and estimated the peak in incidence three weeks late. Using data from 2010-14, we investigated the relationship between GFT estimates (%GFT) and %ILINet. Based on the relationship between the relative change in %GFT and the relative change in %ILINet, we transformed %GFT estimates to better correspond with %ILINet values. In 2010-13, our transformed %GFT estimates were within ± 10% of %ILINet values for 17 of the 29 weeks that %ILINet was above the seasonal baseline value determined by the CDC; in contrast, the original %GFT estimates were within ± 10% of %ILINet values for only two of these 29 weeks. Relative to the %ILINet peak in 2012-13, the peak in our transformed %GFT estimates was 2% lower and one week later, whereas the peak in the original %GFT estimates was 74% higher and three weeks later. The same transformation improved %GFT estimates using the recalibrated 2013 GFT model in early 2013-14. Our transformed %GFT estimates can be calculated approximately one week before %ILINet values are reported by the CDC and the transformation equation was stable over the time period investigated (2010-13). We anticipate our results will facilitate future use of GFT.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207