Cited by 29Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityRecommender Systems and Techniques

Captions and biases in diagnostic search

White, Ryen W., Horvitz, Eric·2013·ACM Transactions on the Web

Abstract

People frequently turn to the Web with the goal of diagnosing medical symptoms. Studies have shown that diagnostic search can often lead to anxiety about the possibility that symptoms are explained by the presence of rare, serious medical disorders, rather than far more common benign syndromes. We study the influence of the appearance of potentially-alarming content, such as severe illnesses or serious treatment options associated with the queried for symptoms, in captions comprising titles, snippets, and URLs. We explore whether users are drawn to results with potentially-alarming caption content, and if so, the implications of such attraction for the design of search engines. We specifically study the influence of the content of search result captions shown in response to symptom searches on search-result click-through behavior. We show that users are significantly more likely to examine and click on captions containing potentially-alarming medical terminology such as “heart attack” or “medical emergency” independent of result rank position and well-known positional biases in users' search examination behaviors. The findings provide insights about the possible effects of displaying implicit correlates of searchers' goals in search-result captions, such as unexpressed concerns and fears. As an illustration of the potential utility of these results, we developed and evaluated an enhanced click prediction model that incorporates potentially-alarming caption features and show that it significantly outperforms models that ignore caption content. Beyond providing additional understanding of the effects of Web content on medical concerns, the methods and findings have implications for search engine design. As part of our discussion on the implications of this research, we propose procedures for generating more representative captions that may be less likely to cause alarm, as well as methods for learning to more appropriately rank search results from logged search behavior, for examples, by also considering the presence of potentially-alarming content in the captions that motivate observed clicks and down-weighting clicks seemingly driven by searchers' health anxieties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2486040

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
White, R. W., & Horvitz, E.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on the Web
Published
2013-10
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
1-28
ISSN
  • 1559-1131 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-114X
OpenAlex
W2171664132
Cited by
29
References
63
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
7.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Transactions on the Web (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
symptom-based diagnosis, click-through behavior, search engine design, health anxiety, search result ranking, position bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review