Assessing Public Interest in Mammography, Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening, and Computed Tomography Colonography Screening Examinations Using Internet Search Data: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The noninvasive imaging examinations of mammography (MG), low-dose computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer screening (LCS), and CT colonography (CTC) play important roles in screening for the most common cancer types. Internet search data can be used to gauge public interest in screening techniques, assess common screening-related questions and concerns, and formulate public awareness strategies. Objective: This study aims to compare historical Google search volumes for MG, LCS, and CTC and to determine the most common search topics. Methods: Google Trends data were used to quantify relative Google search frequencies for these imaging screening modalities over the last 2 decades. A commercial search engine tracking product (keywordtool.io) was used to assess the content of related Google queries over the year from May 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023, and 2 authors used an iterative process to agree upon a list of thematic categories for these queries. Queries with at least 10 monthly instances were independently assigned to the most appropriate category by the 2 authors, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results: The mean 20-year relative search volume for MG was approximately 10-fold higher than for LCS and 25-fold higher than for CTC. Search volumes for LCS have trended upward since 2011. The most common topics of MG-related searches included nearby screening locations (60,850/253,810, 24%) and inquiries about procedural discomfort (28,970/253,810, 11%). Most common LCS-related searches included CT-specific inquiries (5380/11,150, 48%) or general inquiries (1790/11,150, 16%), use of artificial intelligence or deep learning (1210/11,150, 11%), and eligibility criteria (1020/11,150, 9%). For CTC, the most common searches were CT-specific inquiries (1800/5590, 32%) or procedural details (1380/5590, 25%). Conclusions: Over the past 2 decades, Google search volumes have been significantly higher for MG than for either LCS or CTC, although search volumes for LCS have trended upward since 2011. Knowledge of public interest and queries related to imaging-based screening techniques may help guide public awareness efforts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".