Incident: The flu model that beat nothing
Module 3 · Incident file · About 35 minutes
What happened
Google Flu Trends (GFT) estimated how much flu was circulating in the United States from what people searched for, and was built to track the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whose figures arrive weeks late. In February 2013 Nature reported that GFT "was predicting more than double the proportion of doctor visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" (Butler, Nature, 13 February 2013; quoted in Lazer and colleagues, 2014). A year later David Lazer, Ryan Kennedy, Gary King and Alessandro Vespignani published the post-mortem in Science, "The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis" (14 March 2014). Their figure shows that from 21 August 2011 to 1 September 2013 GFT "reported overly high flu prevalence 100 out of 108 weeks", and that it "overshot the actual level in 2011-2012 by more than 50%".
The sharpest finding was about the baseline. "Even 3-week-old CDC data do a better job of projecting current flu prevalence than GFT." Mean absolute error was 0.486 for GFT against 0.311 for a simple model on lagged CDC data. The complex model had been losing to the simplest alternative for two years, and nobody had been checking.