United States Influenza Search Patterns Since the Emergence of COVID-19: Infodemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence and media coverage of COVID-19 may have affected influenza search patterns, possibly affecting influenza surveillance results using Google Trends. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate if the emergence of COVID-19 was associated with modifications in influenza search patterns in the United States. METHODS: We retrieved US Google Trends data (relative number of searches for specified terms) for the topics influenza, Coronavirus disease 2019, and symptoms shared between influenza and COVID-19. We calculated the correlations between influenza and COVID-19 search data for a 1-year period after the first COVID-19 diagnosis in the United States (January 21, 2020 to January 20, 2021). We constructed a seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average model and compared predicted search volumes, using the 4 previous years, with Google Trends relative search volume data. We built a similar model for shared symptoms data. We also assessed correlations for the past 5 years between Google Trends influenza data, US Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention influenza-like illness data, and influenza media coverage data. RESULTS: We observed a nonsignificant weak correlation (ρ= -0.171; P=0.23) between COVID-19 and influenza Google Trends data. Influenza search volumes for 2020-2021 distinctly deviated from values predicted by seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models-for 6 weeks within the first 13 weeks after the first COVID-19 infection was confirmed in the United States, the observed volume of searches was higher than the upper bound of 95% confidence intervals for predicted values. Similar results were observed for shared symptoms with influenza and COVID-19 data. The correlation between Google Trends influenza data and CDC influenza-like-illness data decreased after the emergence of COVID-19 (2020-2021: ρ=0.643; 2019-2020: ρ=0.902), while the correlation between Google Trends influenza data and influenza media coverage volume remained stable (2020-2021: ρ=0.746; 2019-2020: ρ=0.707). CONCLUSIONS: Relevant differences were observed between predicted and observed influenza Google Trends data the year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Such differences are possibly due to media coverage, suggesting limitations to the use of Google Trends as a flu surveillance tool.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".