Heartburn-Related Internet Searches and Trends of Interest across Six Western Countries: A Four-Year Retrospective Analysis Using Google Ads Keyword Planner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The internet is becoming the main source of health-related information. We aimed to investigate data regarding heartburn-related searches made by Google users from Australia, Canada, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We retrospectively analyzed data from Google Ads Keywords Planner. We extracted search volumes of keywords associated with "heartburn" for June 2015 to May 2019. The data were generated in the respective primary language. The number of searches per 1,000 Google-user years was as follows: 177.4 (Australia), 178.1 (Canada), 123.8 (Germany), 199.7 (Poland), 152.5 (United Kingdom), and 194.5 (United States). The users were particularly interested in treatment (19.0 to 41.3%), diet (4.8 to 10.7%), symptoms (2.6 to 13.1%), and causes (3.7 to 10.0%). In all countries except Germany, the number of heartburn-related queries significantly increased over the analyzed period. For Canada, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom, query numbers were significantly lowest in summer; there was no significant seasonal trend for Australia and the United States. The number of heartburn-related queries has increased over the past four years, and a seasonal pattern may exist in certain regions. The trends in heartburn-related searches may reflect the scale of the complaint, and should be verified through future epidemiological studies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".