| Literature DB >> 30601755 |
Nicola Luigi Bragazzi1, Mohammad Adawi2,3,4, Abdulla Watad5,6,7,8, Samaa Watad9, Naim Mahroum5,6,7, Kassem Sharif5,6,7, Howard Amital5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: West Nile virus is an arbovirus responsible for an infection that tends to peak during the late summer and early fall. Tools monitoring Web searches are emerging as powerful sources of data, especially concerning infectious diseases such as West Nile virus.Entities:
Keywords: Google Trends; West Nile virus; forecasting model; infodemiology; infoveillance; seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average model with explicative variable (SARIMAX)
Year: 2019 PMID: 30601755 PMCID: PMC6416538 DOI: 10.2196/publichealth.9176
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill ISSN: 2369-2960
Figure 1Temporal pattern of searching behavior related to the West Nile virus in the United States, as captured by four different novel data streams: Google Trends, WikiTrends, Google News, and YouTube. RSV: relative search volume (expressed as percentage).
Figure 2Seasonal pattern of searching behavior related to the West Nile virus in the United States, as captured by four different novel data streams: Google Trends, WikiTrends, Google News, and YouTube. RSV: relative search volume (expressed as percentage).
Regression analyses to detect potential association between novel data streams (Google Trends, WikiTrends, Google News, and YouTube) and real-world epidemiological figures.
| Source | Regression coefficient | SE | 95% CI | |||
| Intercept | 3327.876 | 966.213 | 1380.603, 5275.150 | 3.444 | .001 | |
| Trimester | –0.531 | 1.535 | –3.624, 2.561 | –0.346 | .73 | |
| Year | –1.653 | 0.481 | –2.622, –0.684 | –3.438 | .001 | |
| West Nile virus cases | 0.014 | 0.001 | 0.011, 0.017 | 9.629 | <.001 | |
| Intercept | –7402.427 | 4130.337 | –15863.039, 1058.184 | –1.792 | .08 | |
| Trimester | 1.715 | 4.288 | –7.068, 10.498 | 0.400 | .69 | |
| Year | 3.694 | 2.053 | –0.512, 7.900 | 1.799 | .08 | |
| West Nile virus cases | –0.003 | 0.005 | –0.012, 0.007 | –0.566 | .58 | |
| Intercept | 8875.080 | 3807.169 | 1076.447, 16673.712 | 2.331 | .03 | |
| Trimester | 1.478 | 3.952 | –6.618, 9.574 | 0.374 | .71 | |
| Year | –4.407 | 1.893 | –8.284, –0.530 | –2.328 | .03 | |
| West Nile virus cases | –0.001 | 0.004 | –0.010, 0.008 | –0.237 | .81 | |
| Intercept | 3297.355 | 3606.758 | –4090.754, 10685.464 | 0.914 | .37 | |
| Trimester | 3.454 | 3.744 | –4.216, 11.124 | 0.923 | .36 | |
| Year | –1.622 | 1.793 | –5.295, 2.051 | –0.904 | .37 | |
| West Nile virus cases | –0.002 | 0.004 | –0.010, 0.007 | –0.453 | .65 | |
Figure 3Correlation between real-world epidemiological figures of West Nile virus (WNV) cases and digital searches. RSV: relative search volume (expressed as percentage).
Figure 4Autocorrelogram and partial autocorrelogram of West Nile virus–related search volumes generated on Google Trends.
Descriptive statistics of the Google Trends–generated data concerning Web queries related to the West Nile virus.
| Lag | Autocovariance | Autocorrelation | SE | 95% CI | Partial autocorrelation | SE | 95% CI |
| 0 | 430.22 | 1.00 | 0.00 | Refa | 1.00 | 0.00 | Ref |
| 1 | 53.83 | 0.13 | 0.14 | –0.27, 0.274 | 0.13 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 2 | –60.95 | –0.14 | 0.14 | –0.27, 0.271 | –0.16 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 3 | 7.85 | 0.02 | 0.14 | –0.27, 0.268 | 0.06 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 4 | 166.97 | 0.38 | 0.14 | –0.27, 0.265 | 0.37 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 5 | 3.73 | 0.01 | 0.13 | –0.26, 0.262 | –0.11 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 6 | –66.73 | –0.16 | 0.13 | –0.26, 0.259 | –0.06 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 7 | –19.78 | –0.05 | 0.13 | –0.26, 0.256 | –0.04 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 8 | 114.81 | 0.27 | 0.13 | –0.25, 0.253 | 0.14 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 9 | –13.47 | –0.03 | 0.13 | –0.25, 0.250 | –0.08 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 10 | –66.81 | –0.16 | 0.13 | –0.25, 0.247 | –0.04 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 11 | –30.33 | –0.07 | 0.12 | –0.24, 0.243 | –0.04 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 12 | 67.99 | 0.16 | 0.12 | –0.24, 0.240 | 0.01 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 13 | –27.40 | –0.06 | 0.12 | –0.24, 0.237 | –0.07 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 14 | –45.30 | –0.11 | 0.12 | –0.23, 0.233 | 0.02 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 15 | –22.67 | –0.05 | 0.12 | –0.23, 0.230 | –0.02 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 16 | 56.78 | 0.13 | 0.12 | –0.23, 0.226 | 0.03 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
| 17 | –15.62 | –0.04 | 0.11 | –0.22, 0.223 | –0.01 | 0.14 | –0.28, 0.28 |
aRef: reference.
Figure 5The outcome of the best seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average model with explicative variable (SARIMAX) forecasting the West Nile virus in the United States using Google Trends-generated data. RSV: relative search volume (expressed as percentage).
Parameters of the best seasonal autoregressive integrated average model with explicative variable (SARIMAX) for forecasting West Nile virus in the United States using Google Trends–generated data.
| Parameter | Value | Hessian SD | 95% CI | Asymptotic SD | 95% CI |
| Constant | 4.261 | Refa | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| West Nile virus cases | 0.022 | 0.055 | –0.086, 0.130 | Ref | Ref |
| MAb(1) | –0.867 | 0.101 | –1.065, –0.670 | 0.124 | –1.110, –0.624 |
| SMAc(1) | 0.672 | 0.120 | 0.436, 0.907 | 0.150 | 0.379, 0.965 |
aRef: reference.
bMA: nonseasonal component.
cSMA: seasonal component.
Figure 6Structural equation model showing the interplay between the different novel data streams concerning West Nile virus–related searching behavior: (a) not adjusted and (b) adjusted for time as confounding variable.
Figure 7Dendrogram analysis of the four novel data streams (Google Trends, Google News, YouTube, and WikiTrends). Units are arbitrary.