Google search stats used to detect potential side effect trends

[mehc012]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/s...rnet-data-study-finds.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Interesting premise...clearly these search data couldn't stand on their own, but they might provide a good starting point for future studies, which is really all they were going for.

People often worry about all the data being collected about browsing histories, but this seems like a good way to utilize it in a way that is actually widely beneficial (to more than just ad companies or the gov't!)

What do you think...is this actually beneficial? Is there potential here, or is it just filling an unnecessary niche? Do you think these sorts of trends are meaningful, or are there just bound to be some fluke correlations and they're catching those?

 

[mehc012]

I think one of my biggest reservations about this system is that people often get ideas in their heads (vaccines--> autism, anyone?) and that those preconceptions would greatly skew the results.

These 'signals' that they discuss seem as if they would only be reliable when the researchers have an idea of what to look for from the start AND the patients are searching without any biased preconceptions of what they want to find.

I worry that, rather than this speeding up the FDA's discovery of new side effects/drug interactions, it might just bring to the forefront some of the more radical/crazy misconceptions on the internet and tie up research hours hashing over baseless claims.