Online Search Trends Influencing Anticoagulation in Patients With COVID-19: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early evidence of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy disseminated rapidly online during the first months of 2020, followed by clinical debate about how best to manage thrombotic risks in these patients. The rapid online spread of case reports was followed by online interim guidelines, discussions, and worldwide online searches for further information. The impact of global online search trends and online discussion on local approaches to coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19 has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between online search trends using Google Trends and the rate of appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and anticoagulation therapy in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a tertiary hospital in Ireland. METHODS: A retrospective audit of anticoagulation therapy and VTE prophylaxis among patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to a tertiary hospital was conducted between February 29 and May 31, 2020. Worldwide Google search trends of the term "COVID-19" and anticoagulation synonyms during this time period were determined and correlated against one another using a Spearman correlation. A P value of <.05 was considered significant, and analysis was completed using Prism, version 8 (GraphPad). RESULTS: A statistically significant Spearman correlation (P<.001, r=0.71) was found between the two data sets, showing an increase in VTE prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 with increasing online searches worldwide. This represents a proxy for online searches and discussion, dissemination of information, and Google search trends relating to COVID-19 and clotting risk, in particular, which correlated with an increasing trend of providing thromboprophylaxis and anticoagulation therapy to patients with COVID-19 in our tertiary center. CONCLUSIONS: We described a correlation of local change in clinical practice with worldwide online dialogue and digital search trends that influenced individual clinicians, prior to the publication of formal guidelines or a local quality-improvement intervention.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".