Disease Monitoring and Health Campaign Evaluation Using Google Search Activities for HIV and AIDS, Stroke, Colorectal Cancer, and Marijuana Use in Canada: A Retrospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infodemiology can offer practical and feasible health research applications through the practice of studying information available on the Web. Google Trends provides publicly accessible information regarding search behaviors in a population, which may be studied and used for health campaign evaluation and disease monitoring. Additional studies examining the use and effectiveness of Google Trends for these purposes remain warranted. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to explore the use of infodemiology in the context of health campaign evaluation and chronic disease monitoring. It was hypothesized that following a launch of a campaign, there would be an increase in information seeking behavior on the Web. Second, increasing and decreasing disease patterns in a population would be associated with search activity patterns. This study examined 4 different diseases: human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, stroke, colorectal cancer, and marijuana use. METHODS: Using Google Trends, relative search volume data were collected throughout the period of February 2004 to January 2015. Campaign information and disease statistics were obtained from governmental publications. Search activity trends were graphed and assessed with disease trends and the campaign interval. Pearson product correlation statistics and joinpoint methodology analyses were used to determine significance. RESULTS: Disease patterns and online activity across all 4 diseases were significantly correlated: HIV infection (r=.36, P<.001), stroke (r=.40, P<.001), colorectal cancer (r= -.41, P<.001), and substance use (r=.64, P<.001). Visual inspection and the joinpoint analysis showed significant correlations for the campaigns on colorectal cancer and marijuana use in stimulating search activity. No significant correlations were observed for the campaigns on stroke and HIV regarding search activity. CONCLUSIONS: The use of infoveillance shows promise as an alternative and inexpensive solution to disease surveillance and health campaign evaluation. Further research is needed to understand Google Trends as a valid and reliable tool for health research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".