Predicting COVID-19 Incidence Through Analysis of Google Trends Data in Iran: Data Mining and Deep Learning Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent global outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is affecting many countries worldwide. Iran is one of the top 10 most affected countries. Search engines provide useful data from populations, and these data might be useful to analyze epidemics. Utilizing data mining methods on electronic resources' data might provide a better insight into the COVID-19 outbreak to manage the health crisis in each country and worldwide. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to predict the incidence of COVID-19 in Iran. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Google Trends website. Linear regression and long short-term memory (LSTM) models were used to estimate the number of positive COVID-19 cases. All models were evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation, and root mean square error (RMSE) was used as the performance metric. RESULTS: The linear regression model predicted the incidence with an RMSE of 7.562 (SD 6.492). The most effective factors besides previous day incidence included the search frequency of handwashing, hand sanitizer, and antiseptic topics. The RMSE of the LSTM model was 27.187 (SD 20.705). CONCLUSIONS: Data mining algorithms can be employed to predict trends of outbreaks. This prediction might support policymakers and health care managers to plan and allocate health care resources accordingly.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".