Anosmia-related internet search and the course of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current pandemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in Wuhan, China. Although the first case in the United States was reported on Jan 20, 2020 in Washington, the early pandemic time course is uncertain. One approach with the potential to provide more insight into this time course is the examination of search activity. This study analyzed US search data prior to the first press release of anosmia as an early symptom (March 20, 2020). METHODS: Daily internet search query data was obtained from Google Trends (September 20th to March 20th for 2015 to 2020) both for the United States and on a state-by-state basis. Normalized anosmia-related search activity for the years prior to the pandemic was averaged to obtain a baseline level. Cross-correlations were performed to determine the time-lag between changes in search activity and SARS-CoV-2 cases/deaths. RESULTS: Only New York showed both significant increases in anosmia-related terms during the pandemic year as well as a significant lag (6 days) between increases in search activity and the number of cases/deaths attributed to SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from search activity to suggest earlier spread of SARS-CoV-2 than has been previously reported. The increase in anosmia-related searches preceded increases in SARS-CoV-2 cases/deaths by 6 days, but this was only significant over the background noise of searches for other reasons in the setting of a very large outbreak (New York in the spring of 2020).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".