Association Between State Indoor Tanning Legislation and Google Search Trends Data in the United States From 2006 to 2019: Time-Series Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun or indoor tanning is the cause of most skin cancers. Although indoor tanning has decreased in recent years, it remains most common among adolescents and young adults, whose skin is particularly vulnerable to long-term damage. US states have adopted several types of legislation to attempt to minimize indoor tanning among minors: a ban on indoor tanning among all minors, a partial minor ban by age (eg, <14 years), or the requirement of parental consent or accompaniment for tanning. Currently, only 6 US states have no indoor tanning legislation for minors. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether internet searches (as an indicator of interest) related to indoor tanning varied across US states by the type of indoor tanning legislation, using data from Google Trends from 2006 to 2019. METHODS: We conducted a time-series analysis of Google Trends data on indoor tanning from 2006 to 2019 by US state. Time-series linear regression models were generated to assess the Google Trends data over time by the type of indoor tanning legislation. RESULTS: We found that indoor tanning search rates decreased significantly for all 50 states and the District of Columbia over time (P<.01). The searches peaked in 2012 when indoor tanning received marked attention (eg, indoor tanning was banned for all minors by the first state-California). The reduction in search rates was more marked for states with a complete ban among minors compared to those with less restrictive types of legislation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with those of other studies on the association between indoor tanning regulations and attitudinal and behavioral trends related to indoor tanning. The main limitation of the study is that raw search data were not available for more precise analysis. With changes in interest and norms, indoor tanning and skin cancer risk among young people may change. Future studies should continue to determine the impact of such public health policies in order to inform policy efforts and minimize risks to public health.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".