General Public’s Information-Seeking Patterns of Topics Related to Obesity: Google Trends Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major public health challenge, and recent literature sheds light on the concept of "normalization" of obesity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study the worldwide pattern of web-based information seeking by public on obesity and on its related terms and topics using Google Trends. METHODS: We compared the relative frequency of obesity-related search terms and topics between 2004 and 2019 on Google Trends. The mean relative interest scores for these terms over the 4-year quartiles were compared. RESULTS: The mean relative interest score of the search term "obesity" consistently decreased with time in all four quartiles (2004-2019), whereas the relative interest scores of the search topics "weight loss" and "abdominal obesity" increased. The topic "weight loss" was popular during the month of January, and its median relative interest score for January was higher than that for other months for the entire study period (P<.001). The relative interest score for the search term "obese" decreased over time, whereas those scores for the terms "body positivity" and "self-love" increased after 2013. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a worldwide increase in the prevalence of obesity, its popularity as an internet search term diminished over time. The reason for peaks in months should be explored and applied to the awareness campaigns for better effectiveness. These patterns suggest normalization of obesity in society and a rise of public curiosity about image-related obesity rather than its medical implications and harm.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".