2013
DOI: 10.1038/494155a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

When Google got flu wrong

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
281
0
5

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 468 publications
(289 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
281
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…In 2009, Google Flu Trends (GFT), a digital disease detection system that uses the volume of selected Google search terms to estimate current influenza-like illnesses (ILI) activity, was identified by many as a good example of how big data would transform traditional statistical predictive analysis (12). However, significant discrepancies between GFT's flu estimates and those measured by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in subsequent years led to considerable doubt about the value of digital disease detection systems (13). Although multiple articles have identified methodological flaws in GFT's original algorithm (14)(15)(16) and have led to incremental improvements (14,16) (see also googleresearch.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2009, Google Flu Trends (GFT), a digital disease detection system that uses the volume of selected Google search terms to estimate current influenza-like illnesses (ILI) activity, was identified by many as a good example of how big data would transform traditional statistical predictive analysis (12). However, significant discrepancies between GFT's flu estimates and those measured by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in subsequent years led to considerable doubt about the value of digital disease detection systems (13). Although multiple articles have identified methodological flaws in GFT's original algorithm (14)(15)(16) and have led to incremental improvements (14,16) (see also googleresearch.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…GFT was extended to other countries and its estimates confirmed to be accurate. However, GFT yielded inaccurate data during several periods [19,20]. In 2009, it produced lower estimates at the start of the H1N1 pandemic; in 2013 its estimates were almost twice those from the CDC.…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, GFT is currently closed to the public. GFT appeared to be sensitive to uncommon flu epidemics, to media coverage, to changes in the internet users' habits and to modifications of the algorithm in the Google search engine [11,20]. Consequently, other studies proposed to combine traditional surveillance systems and web data, to benefit from the advantages of both systems.…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, readers may be interested due to indirect reasons such as news coverage. Prior work disagrees on the impact of such influences; for example, Dukic et al found that adding news coverage to their methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) model had a limited effect [58], but recent Google Flu Trends failures appear to be caused in part by media activity [94]. Finally, both diseases have a relatively short incubation period (influenza at 1-4 days and dengue at 3-14); soon-to-be-ill readers may be observing the illness of their infectors or those who are a small number of degrees removed.…”
Section: Successful Nowcastingmentioning
confidence: 99%