ABSTRACT
Online searches have been used to study different health-related behaviours, including monitoring disease outbreaks. An obvious caveat is that several reasons can motivate individuals to seek online information and models that are blind to people’s motivations are of limited use and can even mislead. This is particularly true during extraordinary public health crisis, such as the ongoing pandemic, when fear, curiosity and many other reasons can lead individuals to search for health-related information, masking the disease-driven searches. However, health crisis can also offer an opportunity to disentangle between different drivers and learn about human behavior. Here, we focus on the two pandemics of the 21st century (2009-H1N1 flu and Covid-19) and propose a methodology to discriminate between search patterns linked to general information seeking (media driven) and search patterns possibly more associated with actual infection (disease driven). We show that by learning from such pandemic periods, with high anxiety and media hype, it is possible to select online searches and improve model performance both in pandemic and seasonal settings. Moreover, and despite the common claim that more data is always better, our results indicate that lower volume of the right data can be better than including large volumes of apparently similar data, especially in the long run. Our work provides a general framework that can be applied beyond specific events and diseases, and argues that algorithms can be improved simply by using less (better) data. This has important consequences, for example, to solve the accuracy-explainability trade-off in machine-learning.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was partially funded by FCT grant DSAIPA/AI/0087/2018 to JGS and by PhD fellowships SFRH/BD/139322/2018 and 2020.10157.BD to CHV and SM, respectively.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* joana.gsa{at}tecnico.ulisboa.pt
Data Availability
All data used in this manuscript is publicly available.