ArticleParasitology2021
The people
Article in Parasitology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical Misinformation in Polish on the World Wide Web During the COVID-19 Pandemic Period: Infodemiology Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Social media as a tool for detecting underdiagnosed parasitic infections: the case of spirocercosis.Parasitology research · 2023Article
- Parasitological transitions: selected outcomes from the XXXII Congress of the Italian Society for Parasitology.Parasitology · 2023Article
- Citizen Science Meet South American Tachinids: New Records of Feather-Legged Fly Trichopoda (Galactomyia) pictipennis Bigot (Diptera: Tachinidae) from Chile.Neotropical entomology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Every internet search query made out of curiosity by anyone who observed something in nature, as well as every photo uploaded to the internet, constitutes a data point of potential use to scientists. Researchers have now begun to exploit the vast online data accumulated through passive crowdsourcing for studies in ecology and epidemiology. Here, we demonstrate the usefulness of iParasitology, i.e. the use of internet data for tests of parasitological hypotheses, using hairworms (phylum Nematomorpha) as examples. These large worms are easily noticeable by people in general, and thus likely to generate interest on the internet. First, we show that internet search queries (collated with Google Trends) and photos uploaded to the internet (specifically, to the iNaturalist platform) point to parts of North America with many sightings of hairworms by the public, but few to no records in the scientific literature. Second, we demonstrate that internet searches predict seasonal peaks in hairworm abundance that accurately match scientific data. Finally, photos uploaded to the internet by non-scientists can provide reliable data on the host taxa that hairworms most frequently parasitize, and also identify hosts that appear to have been neglected by scientific studies. Our findings suggest that for any parasite group likely to be noticeable by non-scientists, information accumulating through internet search activity, photo uploads, social media or any other format available online, represents a valuable source of data that can complement traditional scientific data sources in parasitology.
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.