Integrating Google Trends Search Engine Query Data Into Adult Emergency Department Volume Forecasting: Infodemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The search for health information from web-based resources raises opportunities to inform the service operations of health care systems. Google Trends search query data have been used to study public health topics, such as seasonal influenza, suicide, and prescription drug abuse; however, there is a paucity of literature using Google Trends data to improve emergency department patient-volume forecasting. Objective: We assessed the ability of Google Trends search query data to improve the performance of adult emergency department daily volume prediction models. Methods: Google Trends search query data related to chief complaints and health care facilities were collected from Chicago, Illinois (July 2015 to June 2017). We calculated correlations between Google Trends search query data and emergency department daily patient volumes from a tertiary care adult hospital in Chicago. A baseline multiple linear regression model of emergency department daily volume with traditional predictors was augmented with Google Trends search query data; model performance was measured using mean absolute error and mean absolute percentage error. Results: =0.34) search query data. The final Google Trends data-augmented model included the predictors Combined 3-day moving average and Hospital 3-day moving average and performed better (mean absolute percentage error 6.42%) than the final baseline model (mean absolute percentage error 6.67%)-an improvement of 3.1%. Conclusions: The incorporation of Google Trends search query data into an adult tertiary care hospital emergency department daily volume prediction model modestly improved model performance. Further development of advanced models with comprehensive search query terms and complementary data sources may improve prediction performance and could be an avenue for further research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".