Google Trends in Dermatology: Scoping Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Google Trends is a powerful online database and analytics tool of popular Google search queries over time and has the potential to inform medical practice and priorities. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to survey Google Trends literature in dermatology and elucidate its current roles and relationships with the field. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed to access and review relevant dermatology-related Google Trends studies published within the last 5 years. RESULTS: Current research utilizing Google Trends data provides insight related to skin cancer, pruritus, cosmetic procedures, and COVID-19. We also found that dermatology is presently the highest-searched medical specialty-among 15 medical and surgical specialties as well as general practitioners. Google searches related to dermatology demonstrate a seasonal nature for various skin conditions and sun-related topics, depending on a region's inherent climate and hemi-sphere. In addition, celebrity social media and other viral posts have been found to potentiate Google searches about dermatology and drive public interest. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of relevant studies may have been omitted by the simplified search strategy of this study, as well as by restriction to English language articles and articles indexed in the PubMed database. This could be expanded upon in a secondary systematic review. Future re-search is warranted to better understand how Google Trends can be utilized to improve the quality of clinic visits, drive public health campaigns, and detect disease clusters in real time.
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 | 0.017 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.061 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".