Confounding Effect of Undergraduate Semester–Driven “Academic" Internet Searches on the Ability to Detect True Disease Seasonality in Google Trends Data: Fourier Filter Method Development and Demonstration (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Internet search volume for medical information, as tracked by Google Trends, has been used to demonstrate unexpected seasonality in the symptom burden of a variety of medical conditions. However, when more technical medical language is used (eg, diagnoses), we believe that this technique is confounded by the cyclic, school year–driven internet search patterns of health care students. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to (1) demonstrate that artificial “academic cycling” of Google Trends’ search volume is present in many health care terms, (2) demonstrate how signal processing techniques can be used to filter academic cycling out of Google Trends data, and (3) apply this filtering technique to some clinically relevant examples. METHODS We obtained the Google Trends search volume data for a variety of academic terms demonstrating strong academic cycling and used a Fourier analysis technique to (1) identify the frequency domain fingerprint of this modulating pattern in one particularly strong example, and (2) filter that pattern out of the original data. After this illustrative example, we then applied the same filtering technique to internet searches for information on 3 medical conditions believed to have true seasonal modulation (myocardial infarction, hypertension, and depression), and all bacterial genus terms within a common medical microbiology textbook. RESULTS Academic cycling explains much of the seasonal variation in internet search volume for many technically oriented search terms, including the bacterial genus term [“Staphylococcus”], for which academic cycling explained 73.8% of the variability in search volume (using the squared Spearman rank correlation coefficient, P<.001). Of the 56 bacterial genus terms examined, 6 displayed sufficiently strong seasonality to warrant further examination post filtering. This included (1) [“Aeromonas” + “Plesiomonas”] (nosocomial infections that were searched for more frequently during the summer), (2) [“Ehrlichia”] (a tick-borne pathogen that was searched for more frequently during late spring), (3) [“Moraxella”] and [“Haemophilus”] (respiratory infections that were searched for more frequently during late winter), (4) [“Legionella”] (searched for more frequently during midsummer), and (5) [“Vibrio”] (which spiked for 2 months during midsummer). The terms [“myocardial infarction”] and [“hypertension”] lacked any obvious seasonal cycling after filtering, whereas [“depression”] maintained an annual cycling pattern. CONCLUSIONS Although it is reasonable to search for seasonal modulation of medical conditions using Google Trends’ internet search volume and lay-appropriate search terms, the variation in more technical search terms may be driven by health care students whose search frequency varies with the academic school year. When this is the case, using Fourier analysis to filter out academic cycling is a potential means to establish whether additional seasonality is present.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".