MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405231484 · doi:10.2196/62993

Patterns of Public Interest in Lipomas and Lipoma-Removal Procedures: Google Trends Analysis

2024· article· en· W4405231484 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keenan Duggal

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintLipomaComputer scienceMedicineRadiologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Lipomas are benign tumors composed of encapsulated adipocytes. Although relatively common, uncertainty remains about the population-level prevalence, the etiology, and the degree of public interest in lipomas and associated removal procedures. Objective: The spatiotemporal patterns of public interest in lipomas and lipoma removal procedures were characterized. Methods: Google Trends data that report the relative search volume (RSV) of Google queries pertaining to lipomas and their removal procedures at national and international levels were analyzed. To contextualize these trends, the RSV for lipomas was compared to that of several other common dermatological conditions in the United States. Results: In the United States, lipomas have consistently generated lower levels of public interest than other common dermatological conditions, but interest in the condition has been rising since the mid-2010s. Across the world, public interest in lipomas appears to be the highest in pockets of Eastern Europe, whereas in the United States, relative interest has been higher in Midwestern and Southern states. In addition, the interest in lipoma removal procedures has risen steadily from 2004 to the present, with particularly high RSVs coming from Southwestern states. Conclusions: Dermatologists and plastic surgeons should be aware of the increasing public interest in lipomas and lipoma-removal procedures. Clinical awareness is especially important in states with an elevated interest in lipomas and their associated removal procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DermatologySame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207