Seasonality Patterns of Internet Searches on Mental Health: Exploratory Infodemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study of seasonal patterns of public interest in psychiatric disorders has important theoretical and practical implications for service planning and delivery. The recent explosion of internet searches suggests that mining search databases yields unique information on public interest in mental health disorders, which is a significantly more affordable approach than population health studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate seasonal patterns of internet mental health queries in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Weekly data on health queries in Ontario from Google Trends were downloaded for a 5-year period (2012-2017) for the terms "schizophrenia," "autism," "bipolar," "depression," "anxiety," "OCD" (obsessive-compulsive disorder), and "suicide." Control terms were overall search results for the terms "health" and "how." Time-series analyses using a continuous wavelet transform were performed to isolate seasonal components in the search volume for each term. RESULTS: All mental health queries showed significant seasonal patterns with peak periodicity occurring over the winter months and troughs occurring during summer, except for "suicide." The comparison term "health" also exhibited seasonal periodicity, while the term "how" did not, indicating that general information seeking may not follow a seasonal trend in the way that mental health information seeking does. CONCLUSIONS: Seasonal patterns of internet search volume in a wide range of mental health terms were observed, with the exception of "suicide." Our study demonstrates that monitoring internet search trends is an affordable, instantaneous, and naturalistic method to sample public interest in large populations and inform health policy planners.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".