ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Reappraising the utility of Google Flu Trends.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating mathematical modelling and artificial intelligence to combat emerging viral syndemics: A systematic review.New microbes and new infections · 2026Review
- A stacked ensemble model with NNLS-based weighting for influenza forecasting: a case study of Anhui Province, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Predicting the incidence of common intestinal infectious diseases in Changzhou, China based on environmental factors and deep learning.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Developing predictive models for COVID-19 positive tests based on the XGBoost and random forest algorithms with internet search data.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Barriers to translating continuous monitoring technologies for preventative medicine.Nature biomedical engineering · 2025Review
- Infectious Disease Surveillance in the Era of Big Data and AI: Opportunities and Pitfalls.Cureus · 2025Review
- Global infectious disease early warning models: An updated review and lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Review
- Bracing the artificial intelligence technology in viral infectious disease control.Infectious medicine · 2025Article
- Investigating Google Trends to forecast acute febrile illness outbreaks in North India reported through the Integrated Disease Surveillance Program.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Drawing on the Development Experiences of Infectious Disease Surveillance Systems Around the World.China CDC weekly · 2024Article
- A Bayesian System to Detect and Track Outbreaks of Influenza-Like Illnesses Including Novel Diseases: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Spatio-temporal evaluation of social media as a tool for livestock disease surveillance.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 Using Infoveillance, National Reporting Data, and Wastewater in Wales, United Kingdom: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2023Article
- The evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of google searches.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- County-level estimates of suicide mortality in the USA: a modelling study.The Lancet. Public health · 2023Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on search in an organisation.Journal of information science · 2023Article
- Web-based surveillance of respiratory infection outbreaks: retrospective analysis of Italian COVID-19 epidemic waves using Google Trends.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- How do El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and local meteorological factors affect the incidence of seasonal influenza in New York state.Hygiene and environmental health advances · 2022Article
- Predicting health crises from early warning signs in patient medical records.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimation of influenza-like illness (ILI) using search trends activity was intended to supplement traditional surveillance systems, and was a motivation behind the development of Google Flu Trends (GFT). However, several studies have previously reported large errors in GFT estimates of ILI in the US. Following recent release of time-stamped surveillance data, which better reflects real-time operational scenarios, we reanalyzed GFT errors. Using three data sources-GFT: an archive of weekly ILI estimates from Google Flu Trends; ILIf: fully-observed ILI rates from ILINet; and, ILIp: ILI rates available in real-time based on partial reporting-five influenza seasons were analyzed and mean square errors (MSE) of GFT and ILIp as estimates of ILIf were computed. To correct GFT errors, a random forest regression model was built with ILI and GFT rates from the previous three weeks as predictors. An overall reduction in error of 44% was observed and the errors of the corrected GFT are lower than those of ILIp. An 80% reduction in error during 2012/13, when GFT had large errors, shows that extreme failures of GFT could have been avoided. Using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models, one- to four-week ahead forecasts were generated with two separate data streams: ILIp alone, and with both ILIp and corrected GFT. At all forecast targets and seasons, and for all but two regions, inclusion of GFT lowered MSE. Results from two alternative error measures, mean absolute error and mean absolute proportional error, were largely consistent with results from MSE. Taken together these findings provide an error profile of GFT in the US, establish strong evidence for the adoption of search trends based 'nowcasts' in influenza forecast systems, and encourage reevaluation of the utility of this data source in diverse domains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.