Estimating Rare Disease Incidences With Large-scale Internet Search Data: Development and Evaluation of a Two-step Machine Learning Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background As rare diseases (RDs) receive increasing attention, obtaining accurate RD incidence estimates has become an essential concern in public health. Since RDs are difficult to diagnose, include diverse types, and have scarce cases, traditional epidemiological methods are costly in RD registries. With the development of the internet, users have become accustomed to searching for disease-related information through search engines before seeking medical treatment. Therefore, online search data provide a new source for estimating RD incidences. Objective The aim of this study was to estimate the incidences of multiple RDs in distinct regions of China with online search data. Methods Our research scale included 15 RDs in China from 2016 to 2019. The online search data were obtained from Sogou, one of the top 3 commercial search engines in China. By matching to multilevel keywords related to 15 RDs during the 4 years, we retrieved keyword-matched RD-related queries. The queries used before and after the keyword-matched queries formed the basis of the RD-related search sessions. A two-step method was developed to estimate RD incidences with users’ intents conveyed by the sessions. In the first step, a combination of long short-term memory and multilayer perceptron algorithms was used to predict whether the intents of search sessions were RD-concerned, news-concerned, or others. The second step utilized a linear regression (LR) model to estimate the incidences of multiple RDs in distinct regions based on the RD- and news-concerned session numbers. For evaluation, the estimated incidences were compared with RD incidences collected from China’s national multicenter clinical database of RDs. The root mean square error (RMSE) and relative error rate (RER) were used as the evaluation metrics. Results The RD-related online data included 2,749,257 queries and 1,769,986 sessions from 1,380,186 users from 2016 to 2019. The best LR model with sessions as the input estimated the RD incidences with an RMSE of 0.017 (95% CI 0.016-0.017) and an RER of 0.365 (95% CI 0.341-0.388). The best LR model with queries as input had an RMSE of 0.023 (95% CI 0.017-0.029) and an RER of 0.511 (95% CI 0.377-0.645). Compared with queries, using session intents achieved an error decrease of 28.57% in terms of the RER (P=.01). Analysis of different RDs and regions showed that session input was more suitable for estimating the incidences of most diseases (14 of 15 RDs). Moreover, examples focusing on two RDs showed that news-concerned session intents reflected news of an outbreak and helped correct the overestimation of incidences. Experiments on RD types further indicated that type had no significant influence on the RD estimation task. Conclusions This work sheds light on a novel method for rapid estimation of RD incidences in the internet era, and demonstrates that search session intents were especially helpful for the estimation. The proposed two-step estimation method could be a valuable supplement to the traditional registry for understanding RDs, planning policies, and allocating medical resources. The utilization of search sessions in disease detection and estimation could be transferred to infoveillance of large-scale epidemics or chronic diseases.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".