Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36186843›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2022

Modeling COVID-19 incidence with Google Trends.

Lateef Babatunde Amusa, Hossana Twinomurinzi, Chinedu Wilfred Okonkwo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Lateef Babatunde AmusaCentre for Applied Data Science, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Hossana TwinomurinziCentre for Applied Data Science, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Chinedu Wilfred OkonkwoCentre for Applied Data Science, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infodemiologic methods could be used to enhance modeling infectious diseases. It is of interest to verify the utility of these methods using a Nigerian case study. We used Google Trends data to track COVID-19 incidences and assessed whether they could complement traditional data based solely on reported case numbers. Data on the Nigerian weekly COVID-19 cases spanning through March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021, were matched with internet search data from Google Trends. The reported weekly incidence numbers and the GT data were split into training and testing sets. ARIMA models were fitted to describe reported weekly COVID cases using the training set. Several COVID-related search terms were theoretically and empirically assessed for initial screening. The utilized Google Trends (GT) variable was added to the ARIMA model as a regressor. Model forecasts, both with and without GTD, were compared with weekly cases in the test set over 13 weeks. Forecast accuracies were compared visually and using RMSE (root mean square error) and MAE (mean average error). Statistical significance of the difference in predictions was determined with the two-sided Diebold-Mariano test. Preliminary results of contemporaneous correlations between COVID-related search terms and weekly COVID cases reveal "loss of smell," "loss of taste," "fever" (in order of magnitude) as significantly associated with the official cases. Predictions of the ARIMA model using solely reported case numbers resulted in an RMSE (root mean squared error) of 411.4 and mean absolute error (MAE) of 354.9. The GT expanded model achieved better forecasting accuracy (RMSE: 388.7 and MAE = 340.1). Corrected Akaike Information Criteria also favored the GT expanded model (869.4 vs. 872.2). The difference in predictive performances was significant when using a two-sided Diebold-Mariano test (DM = 6.75,

Indexed as

ARIMABig DataCOVID-19Google Trendsinfectious disease modeling

Identifiers

PMID36186843
PMCPMC9520600

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.