Using WeChat, a Chinese Social Media App, for Early Detection of the COVID-19 Outbreak in December 2019: Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was identified in December 2019, when the first cases were reported in Wuhan, China. The once-localized outbreak has since been declared a pandemic. As of April 24, 2020, there have been 2.7 million confirmed cases and nearly 200,000 deaths. Early warning systems using new technologies should be established to prevent or mitigate such events in the future. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the possibility of detecting the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in 2019 using social media. METHODS: WeChat Index is a data service that shows how frequently a specific keyword appears in posts, subscriptions, and search over the last 90 days on WeChat, the most popular Chinese social media app. We plotted daily WeChat Index results for keywords related to SARS-CoV-2 from November 17, 2019, to February 14, 2020. RESULTS: WeChat Index hits for "Feidian" (which means severe acute respiratory syndrome in Chinese) stayed at low levels until 16 days ahead of the local authority's outbreak announcement on December 31, 2019, when the index increased significantly. The WeChat Index values persisted at relatively high levels from December 15 to 29, 2019, and rose rapidly on December 30, 2019, the day before the announcement. The WeChat Index hits also spiked for the keywords "SARS," "coronavirus," "novel coronavirus," "shortness of breath," "dyspnea," and "diarrhea," but these terms were not as meaningful for the early detection of the outbreak as the term "Feidian". CONCLUSIONS: By using retrospective infoveillance data from the WeChat Index, the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in December 2019 could have been detected about two weeks before the outbreak announcement. WeChat may offer a new approach for the early detection of disease outbreaks.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".