Michael S Deiner1,2, Stephen D McLeod1,2, James Chodosh3, Catherine E Oldenburg1,2,4, Cherie A Fathy5, Thomas M Lietman1,2,4, Travis C Porco1,2,4. 1. Francis I. Proctor Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States. 3. Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States. 5. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Brockton Signature Hospital, Brockton, Massachusetts, United States.
Abstract
Purpose: We sought to determine whether big data from social media might reveal seasonal trends of conjunctivitis, most forms of which are nonreportable. Methods: Social media posts (from Twitter, and from online forums and blogs) were classified by age and by conjunctivitis type (allergic or infectious) using Boolean and machine learning methods. Based on spline smoothing, we estimated the circular mean occurrence time (a measure of central tendency for occurrence) and the circular variance (a measure of uniformity of occurrence throughout the year, providing an index of seasonality). Clinical records from a large tertiary care provider were analyzed in a similar way for comparison. Results: Social media posts machine-coded as being related to infectious conjunctivitis showed similar times of occurrence and degree of seasonality to clinical infectious cases, and likewise for machine-coded allergic conjunctivitis posts compared to clinical allergic cases. Allergic conjunctivitis showed a distinctively different seasonal pattern than infectious conjunctivitis, with a mean occurrence time later in the spring. Infectious conjunctivitis for children showed markedly greater seasonality than for adults, though the occurrence times were similar; no such difference for allergic conjunctivitis was seen. Conclusions: Social media posts broadly track the seasonal occurrence of allergic and infectious conjunctivitis, and may be a useful supplement for epidemiologic monitoring.
Purpose: We sought to determine whether big data from social media might reveal seasonal trends of conjunctivitis, most forms of which are nonreportable. Methods: Social media posts (from Twitter, and from online forums and blogs) were classified by age and by conjunctivitis type (allergic or infectious) using Boolean and machine learning methods. Based on spline smoothing, we estimated the circular mean occurrence time (a measure of central tendency for occurrence) and the circular variance (a measure of uniformity of occurrence throughout the year, providing an index of seasonality). Clinical records from a large tertiary care provider were analyzed in a similar way for comparison. Results: Social media posts machine-coded as being related to infectious conjunctivitis showed similar times of occurrence and degree of seasonality to clinical infectious cases, and likewise for machine-coded allergic conjunctivitis posts compared to clinical allergic cases. Allergic conjunctivitis showed a distinctively different seasonal pattern than infectious conjunctivitis, with a mean occurrence time later in the spring. Infectious conjunctivitis for children showed markedly greater seasonality than for adults, though the occurrence times were similar; no such difference for allergic conjunctivitis was seen. Conclusions: Social media posts broadly track the seasonal occurrence of allergic and infectious conjunctivitis, and may be a useful supplement for epidemiologic monitoring.
Authors: D M Hartley; N P Nelson; R R Arthur; P Barboza; N Collier; N Lightfoot; J P Linge; E van der Goot; A Mawudeku; L C Madoff; L Vaillant; R Walters; R Yangarber; J Mantero; C D Corley; J S Brownstein Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Michael S Deiner; Thomas M Lietman; Stephen D McLeod; James Chodosh; Travis C Porco Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Jeremy Ginsberg; Matthew H Mohebbi; Rajan S Patel; Lynnette Brammer; Mark S Smolinski; Larry Brilliant Journal: Nature Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Mauricio Santillana; André T Nguyen; Mark Dredze; Michael J Paul; Elaine O Nsoesie; John S Brownstein Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Michael S Deiner; Stephen D McLeod; Jessica Wong; James Chodosh; Thomas M Lietman; Travis C Porco Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Michael S Deiner; Gurbani Kaur; Stephen D McLeod; Julie M Schallhorn; James Chodosh; Daniel H Hwang; Thomas M Lietman; Travis C Porco Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Ali Sié; Abdramane Diarra; Ourohiré Millogo; Augustin Zongo; Elodie Lebas; Till Bärnighausen; James Chodosh; Travis C Porco; Michael S Deiner; Thomas M Lietman; Jeremy D Keenan; Catherine E Oldenburg Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Michael S Deiner; Gerami D Seitzman; Gurbani Kaur; Stephen D McLeod; James Chodosh; Thomas M Lietman; Travis C Porco Journal: JMIR Infodemiology Date: 2022-03-16