Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31304318›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2018

Machine-learned epidemiology: real-time detection of foodborne illness at scale.

Adam Sadilek, Stephanie Caty, Lauren DiPrete, Raed Mansour, Tom Schenk, Mark Bergtholdt, Ashish Jha, Prem Ramaswami, Evgeniy Gabrilovich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Artificial intelligence in food safety.NPJ science of food · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Innovations in public health surveillance: An overview of novel use of data and analytic methods.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024
    Article
  11. Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Implementation Science.Online journal of public health informatics · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Lessons from COVID-19 for rescalable data collection.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Adam Sadilek *1Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA.
Stephanie Caty *2Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 42 Church St, Cambridge, MA 02135 USA.
Lauren DiPrete3Southern Nevada Health District, 280 S Decatur Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89107 USA.
Raed Mansour4Chicago Department of Public Health, 333 S State St #200, Chicago, IL 60604 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8484-0730
Tom SchenkChicago Department of Innovation and Technology, 333 S State St #420, Chicago, IL 60614 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7533-1152
Mark Bergtholdt3Southern Nevada Health District, 280 S Decatur Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89107 USA.
Ashish Jha2Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 42 Church St, Cambridge, MA 02135 USA.
Prem Ramaswami1Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA.
Evgeniy Gabrilovich1Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA.

Funding

ACL HHS U01EH001301NCEH CDC HHS U01 EH001301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning has become an increasingly powerful tool for solving complex problems, and its application in public health has been underutilized. The objective of this study is to test the efficacy of a machine-learned model of foodborne illness detection in a real-world setting. To this end, we built FINDER, a machine-learned model for real-time detection of foodborne illness using anonymous and aggregated web search and location data. We computed the fraction of people who visited a particular restaurant and later searched for terms indicative of food poisoning to identify potentially unsafe restaurants. We used this information to focus restaurant inspections in two cities and demonstrated that FINDER improves the accuracy of health inspections; restaurants identified by FINDER are 3.1 times as likely to be deemed unsafe during the inspection as restaurants identified by existing methods. Additionally, FINDER enables us to ascertain previously intractable epidemiological information, for example, in 38% of cases the restaurant potentially causing food poisoning was not the last one visited, which may explain the lower precision of complaint-based inspections. We found that FINDER is able to reliably identify restaurants that have an active lapse in food safety, allowing for implementation of corrective actions that would prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness.

Indexed as

Data miningEpidemiologyMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID31304318
PMCPMC6550174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.