Research Article |
|
Corresponding author: Liliya А. Rodionova ( lrodionova@hse.ru ) © 2026 Liliya А. Rodionova, Elena D. Kopnova, Svetlana S. Kamalendinova, Nikita A. Rodionov.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Rodionova LА, Kopnova ED, Kamalendinova SS, Rodionov NA (2026) Forecasting the Birth Rate in Russia Based on Google Trends Search Query Statistics. Population and Economics 10(2): 92-114. https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.10.e169776
|
This article proposes an approach to forecasting fertility using Google Trends search query statistics. Unlike existing studies on fertility forecasting, this paper introduces a method for aggregating thematic search queries using machine learning techniques, reducing the dimensionality of search queries through principal component analysis, and incorporating a lag structure of search queries ranging from 1 to 12 months depending on the search topic. The lag depth was determined based on the cross-correlation function, comparison of information criteria, and the statistical significance of the corresponding coefficients in the SARIMAX model. The study uses Rosstat data on the monthly number of registered births in Russia from January 2011 to December 2024. The results show that a SARIMAX-based fertility forecasting model that incorporates search query statistics and their lag structure improves forecast accuracy. The best one-year-ahead forecasting model includes the query group “Preparation for childbirth” and its lags, while for two- and three-year horizons the best performance is achieved using the model with “All queries.” Forecast accuracy is evaluated using the MAPE and MAE metrics. To assess the robustness of the results, a cross-validation procedure with expanding and sliding windows was additionally applied.
fertility, search activity, search query statistics, principal component analysis, machine learning methods, SARIMAX models, lag structure of search queries, cross-validation
Forecasting fertility is a key element in the development of medium- and long-term strategies for socio-economic development and demographic policy in any country. Fertility forecasts are necessary for assessing the future balance of labour resources, planning the development of the social sphere, and determining needs for medical care, social services, and other areas. International organizations use various methodologies to construct fertility forecasts, including cohort-component models, stochastic models, probabilistic methods, and others. The choice of methodology depends on the quality and availability of source data across countries and regions, as well as on the need to account for specific demographic characteristics, economic and social conditions, the impact of crises, migration, and other factors. Variations in forecasting methods are also associated with different levels of detail and forecast objectives, which may serve as a basis for policy development or academic research [
In the Russian Federation, econometric models have recently been increasingly used to forecast demographic indicators, including mortality [
In recent decades, with the development of the internet and the digitalization of the economy and society, a large volume of information related to social media use, website activity, search engine data, SIM card mobility data, and other digital traces has emerged. Until recently, such digital information was rarely used in academic economic research, with preference traditionally given to classical sources of official statistical data. Over the past decade, however, interest in digital data – particularly search query statistics – has increased in both international and domestic research. For example, Jun et al. [
By combining data from search engines with official statistics, it is possible to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of demographic processes, both in terms of overall trends and the mechanisms underlying their formation, which is especially important in the context of contemporary uncertainty. Alongside classical econometric approaches to forecasting the dynamics of economic and demographic processes – which tend to perform well under conditions of stable underlying trends – forecasting based on search query data is increasingly being applied, as it can improve forecast accuracy.
It is also important to note that internet search queries and search behavior can serve as unique indicators of changes in social behavior, capturing population intentions, sentiments, and preferences in response to changing conditions during periods of uncertainty (such as pandemics, economic crises, and military conflicts) well before the publication of official statistics, or in contexts where the dissemination of demographic data is restricted. For example, increased interest in topics related to pregnancy and childbirth may precede an increase in fertility, signaling shifts in reproductive intentions with a lag of approximately nine months prior to the release of official statistics.
This article examines the possibilities and limitations of using search query statistics to forecast fertility in Russia.
Over the past decade, the use of web-based data in scientific research has demonstrated its usefulness for assessing various aspects of human activity. Google Trends is the most widely used tool for collecting such information. One of the pioneering studies on the use of Google Trends for forecasting was conducted by Ginsberg et al. [2009], who showed that Google Trends data could track and predict the spread of influenza more rapidly than reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Mavragani et al. [
In Russia, some experience has also been accumulated in using search query statistics to forecast economic and demographic indicators, including the unemployment rate [
New digital data sources, such as Google Trends and Yandex Wordstat, have expanded the possibilities for demographic analysis. These tools are used to address a wide range of research tasks, from improving demographic forecasts to analyzing public sentiment and identifying the reproductive attitudes of the population. Google Trends provides statistics on Google search queries starting from 2004, while Yandex Wordstat has offered statistics on Yandex search queries since 2018. Search queries constitute a valuable data source, as they consist of anonymized information generated by large groups of users.
The use of Google Trends and Yandex Wordstat data has several advantages, including accessibility, large data volumes, and geographic detail. A number of studies confirm that search activity is closely linked to reproductive behavior and family planning. For example, positive correlations have been found between the number of births and Google Trends search queries related to “motherhood,” “ovulation,” and “pregnancy” [
Forming a set of search queries plays an important role when working with search data. For example, in studies on fertility [
In addition, modern methods for forming query clusters are applied, including the identification of “synsets”
Let us note several general points regarding the reviewed studies. First, most authors emphasize that the use of search query data improves the predictive performance of models compared to classical approaches. Second, the approaches used to generate the set of search queries subsequently incorporated into forecasting models vary substantially across studies, ranging from the selection of phrases logically related to the object of analysis to the application of machine learning methods. Third, there are very few studies devoted to forecasting fertility in Russia using Google Trends data and time series models.
It should be noted that Kalabikhina et al. [
When forecasting processes based on search query statistics, various econometric models are employed, including VAR models [
Search queries are incorporated into forecasting models in different ways. For example, in Billari et al. [
An important feature of working with time series data is the inclusion of lagged values of search queries, with lag lengths varying depending on the research topic. For instance, when forecasting migration, lags from 1 to 12 months are typically used [
Number of births. The study uses time series data obtained from the Unified Interdepartmental Information and Statistical System (EMISS)
Based on the HEGY test (specifications with a constant; with a constant and trend; and with a constant, trend, and seasonal dummies), the stationarity of the series was tested, taking into account the seasonal nature of the data. At the 5% significance level, the orders of non-seasonal and seasonal integration of the process were determined. The series of registered births became stationary after applying both non-seasonal and seasonal differencing.
Search query statistics were constructed using the Google Trends Index
A key limitation of Google Trends is that the relative share of queries is presented in normalized form, which complicates comparisons across different time periods. The same query may have different index values depending on the selected time window, and absolute numbers of queries are not available. To address this issue, the GTI data were subsequently standardized, following Fantazzini [
To ensure comparability between the baseline models and the extended models incorporating search data, all SARIMA and SARIMAX modelsare estimated using data starting from January 2011. Accordingly, the GTI search query time series
As an example, Fig.
It can be observed that the series exhibits both a trend and a seasonal component. Therefore, for subsequent fertility forecasting using SARIMA models, it is necessary to examine the stationarity of each query and determine the appropriate model parameters. Each query variable was tested for stationarity using the HEGY test, with results presented in Appendix (
When using GTI statistics for forecasting, it is necessary to identify a set of relevant search queries. Several approaches can be used to form such a set, one of which is expert selection, including relying on previous research. Thus, the initial list was compiled based on topics identified in scientific publications, such as “pregnancy” and “maternity hospital” [
A distributed word embeddings approach was also applied to generate an extended set of fertility-related search queries. Using a machine learning model trained on a corpus of Russian-language texts, including Wikipedia articles, dictionaries, and other corpora, semantically similar words were extracted from the initially expert-defined set of terms. Semantic similarity was measured as the cosine similarity between word vectors, ranging from 0 to 1 (0 indicates no similarity; 1 indicates complete coincidence in context and meaning). In practice, cosine similarity values above 0.5 are generally considered indicative of a meaningful semantic relationship, while values above 0.7 indicate a high degree of similarity in context. In this study, words with similarity greater than 0.5 were selected.
For example, a model trained on Russian-language Wikipedia identified the terms “menstruation” (0.66), “give birth” (0.61), and “ovulation” (0.6) as closest to the word “pregnancy.” However, not all resulting phrases correspond to actual user behavior online. A term may be linguistically close in meaning but rarely used in real search queries. For instance, the model recognized “pregnancy test” as similar to “pregnancy diagnosis” (similarity = 0.5). However, “pregnancy diagnosis” is rarely searched by ordinary users and is more typical of professional terminology. Consequently, insufficient GTI data are available for such queries, limiting their usefulness in modeling.
The second method is based on statistics of word usage on the Internet. One of the online platforms providing such statistics is the National Corpus of the Russian Language (NCRL)
Currently, the NCRL contains approximately 342 thousand texts and over 2 billion words. Various linguistic metrics are employed to analyze relationships between words. In addition to simple frequency counts, statistical measures such as Mutual Information (MI), Log-likelihood, T-score, LogDice, and aggregate measures are used. These metrics help determine how often words co-occur and the strength of their semantic relationships. For example, LogDice identifies stable and meaningful phrases, while MI highlights rare but semantically significant word pairs.
For the selection of collocations
As a result, for each approach, an initial set of 67 search queries was defined. This set was subsequently reduced to 56 queries due to insufficient data for some terms, which were then used to extract the GTI time series. Thus, 56 words and phrases were included in the final set of search queries, distributed across four thematic blocks related to reproductive behavior: “pregnancy planning,” “pregnancy course,” “preparation for childbirth,” and “universal queries” relevant at any stage (see Table
| Search queries | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy Planning | “Pregnancy course” (early stages and management) | “Preparing for childbirth” (late pregnancy and childbirth preparation) | “Universal queries” (throughout pregnancy) |
| • Preparing for pregnancy | • Signs of pregnancy | • Fetal movements | • Childbirth |
| • Planning a pregnancy | • Delayed menstruation | • Fetal position | • Pregnancy |
| • How to get pregnant | • Pregnancy test | • Harbingers of labour | • Obstetrician-gynecologist |
| • Ovulation | • hCG | • Paired births | • Pregnancy diary |
| • Ovulation calculation | • How to determine pregnancy | • Breathing during childbirth | • Maternity capital |
| • When does ovulation occur? | • Early pregnancy | • Maternity hospital bag | • Maternity clothes |
| • Ovulation calendar | • Pregnancy period | • List for the maternity hospital | • Trimester |
| • Days favourable for conception | • Pregnancy due date calculator | • Documents for the maternity hospital | |
| • ECO | • Ultrasound during pregnancy | • Maternity hospital | |
| • Ovulation stimulation | • Toxicosis | • Perinatal center | |
| • Women’s consultation | • Pregnancy screening | • C-section | |
| • Pregnancy management | • Natural childbirth | ||
| • Vitamins during pregnancy | • Stretch mark cream during pregnancy | ||
| • Folic acid | • Maternity leave | ||
| • Contraindications during pregnancy | • Sick leave due to pregnancy | ||
| • Antibiotics during pregnancy | • Postpartum recovery | ||
| • Flu during pregnancy | |||
| • Nutrition during pregnancy | |||
| • Sleep during pregnancy | |||
| • Courses for pregnant women | |||
| • Books for expectant mothers | |||
In order to use the obtained search queries in time series forecasting models, it was necessary to significantly reduce the dimensionality of the query set. Estimating a SARIMAX model with 56 variables included as exogenous regressors is not feasible due to the limited length of the birth number time series and the difficulty of interpreting such a high-dimensional multivariate model. Following the approach of similar studies [
Initially, PCA was applied to the full set of 56 search queries. However, using the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue > 1), 19 components were extracted, which was still too many for further analysis. Therefore, PCA was subsequently performed separately within the pre-defined thematic blocks of queries based on substantive similarity. The analysis by thematic blocks yielded the following results according to the Kaiser criterion (see Table
| Initial number of variables | Number of components according to the Kaiser criterion | Optimal number of components based on their importance in the model | Significant components | |
| All search queries | 56 | 19 | 7 | 2, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, 19 |
| Planning a pregnancy | 11 | 5 | 2 | 1, 4 |
| The course of pregnancy | 21 | 8 | 4 | 2, 3, 4, 5 |
| Preparing for childbirth | 16 | 6 | 2 | 2, 3 |
| Universal queries | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Quality criteria for fertility forecasting in SARIMAX models with PCs and their lags
| Query group | Significant components | With/without lags | MAPE | MAE | Average lag | ||||
| 1 year | 2 years | 3 years | 1 year | 2 years | 3 years | ||||
| Original model without queries | 4.62 | 4.2 | 3.52 | 4684.5 | 4320.9 | 3655.5 | - | ||
| PC (“all quiries”) | 2, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, 19 | Without lags | 3.2 | 3.08 | 3.13 | 3246.6 | 3171.9 | 3278.3 | - |
| With lags | 3.24 | 2.7 | 2.60 | 3292.6 | 2795.8 | 2699.9 | 6.5 [5,23; 7,76] | ||
| PC “Pregnancy Planning” | 1.4 | Without lags | 4.3 | 3.98 | 3.42 | 4380.5 | 4116 | 3559 | - |
| With lags | 3.66 | 3.26 | 2.97 | 3687.3 | 3352.9 | 3092 | 7.4 [5,65; 9,19] | ||
| PC “Pregnancy Course” | 2, 3, 4, 5 | Without lags | 4.51 | 4.14 | 3.50 | 4557 | 4263.6 | 3646 | - |
| With lags | 3.13 | 3.14 | 2.77 | 3213.6 | 3272.2 | 2918.3 | 6.6 [4,87; 8,25] | ||
| PC “Preparation for childbirth” | 2, 3 | Without lags | 3.85 | 3.49 | 3.12 | 3901.6 | 3615.9 | 3254.4 | - |
| With lags | 3.1 | 2.86 | 2.71 | 3120.7 | 2926.7 | 2816.9 | 6 [3,96; 7,97] | ||
| PC “Universal queries” | 1 | Without lags | 4.46 | 4.02 | 3.38 | 4520.5 | 4118.7 | 3508.2 | - |
| With lags | 4.28 | 3.70 | 3.25 | 4357.1 | 3811.3 | 3385.1 | 5.3 [3,31; 7,66] | ||
| Query group | With/without lags | Dilbord-Mariano test statistics | ||
| 1 year | 2 years | 3 years | ||
| PC (“all queries”) | Without lags | 1,95** | 1.29 | 1.32 |
| With lags | 4,58*** | 2,17** | 2,36** | |
| PC “Planning” | Without lags | 0.18 | 0.5 | 0.57 |
| With lags | 1,82* | 1,75* | 2,06** | |
| PC “ Pregnancy Management” | Without lags | 1.31 | 0.9 | 0.74 |
| With lags | 1,63* | 1.61 | 1,73* | |
| PC “ Preparation for childbirth” | Without lags | 1.22 | 0.86 | 0.9 |
| With lags | 2,52** | 2,15** | 1.62 | |
| PC “Universal Queries” | Without lags | 0.97 | 0.81 | 0.56 |
| With lags | 2,29** | 0.94 | 1,83* | |
The impact of including search queries in forecasting models: comparison of forecast accuracy across different topics
| Work | Topic | Model | Without search queries | After enabling search queries | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAPE | MAE | MAPE | Δ MAPE | MAE | |||
| Current work | Fertility | SARIMA | 4.2 | 4320.9 | 2.7 | -1.5 | 2795.8 |
| Tourism | SARIMA | 6.2 | 9634.21 | 5.5 | -0.7 | 8479.61 | |
| Kapitány‐Föveny et al. 2019 | Healthcare | SARIMA | 8.23 | 0.31 | 8.17 | -0.06 | 0.3 |
| Unemployment | ARIMA | 7.07 | 0.3 | 6.94 | -0.13 | 0.29 | |
| Migration | SARIMA | 6.8 | 311.3 | 3.5 | -3.3 | 177.8 | |
For the subsequent analysis, principal components were used instead of the original search queries.
The SARIMA model was used as the baseline model for the time series covering the period from January 2011 to December 2024. Based on the information criteria AIC and BIC, the most optimal model was identified as SARIMA (2, 1, 0)(0, 1, 1)12:
(1 – φ1L – φ2L2)ΔΔ12yt = (1 + θ12L12)εt, (1)
where φi are coefficients of the AR part, L is the lag operator (Lkyt = yt−k), Δ = 1 − L is the first non-seasonal difference operator, Δ12 is the seasonal difference operator, θi are the coefficients of the MA part, εt is white noise Parameter estimates for model (1) are provided in Appendix (Table
To verify the assumptions of the model and assess the adequacy of the estimates, the residuals were analyzed for autocorrelation and conformity with the normal distribution. The residuals were found to be consistent with a white noise process, as indicated by the Ljung – Box statistic
Initially, an increasing number of components were sequentially included in the SARIMAX model for each thematic block. The resulting models were then compared using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), and for each block, the number of components was selected for which the model exhibited the lowest AIC value. The selection was performed separately for each block, and only statistically significant principal components were included (see Table
Taking into account the lag structure of data. The next step in modeling involved introducing a lagged component structure, as it is reasonable to assume that the influence of interest in certain topics (search queries) on the birth rate may manifest with a delay of varying length. Based on the literature review, lags from 1 to 12 months were considered. This range corresponds to the plausible time between interest in fertility or childbirth topics and the actual realization of reproductive intentions.
Lags were selected based on the analysis of cross-correlation functions between the differences in principal components and the target variable – the number of births. The final model included only those lagged PCs that were statistically significant. Lag lengths varied from 1 to 12 months depending on the thematic block.
For example, in the “Preparation for Childbirth” PC block, 17 lags were included in the model. By component:
A detailed list of lags for each thematic block used in the SARIMAX models is provided in Appendix (
The lag structure of the models proved to be complex and difficult to interpret. To assess the stability and adequacy of the lag structure, the average lag was calculated for each thematic block, following the methodology proposed by Bronitsky and Vakulenko [2024]. The results of the average lag estimation, with 95% confidence intervals, are presented in Table
The “Universal queries” block showed the smallest average lag, 5.3 months, with a 95% confidence interval of [3.31; 7.66], indicating the shortest time delay between search activity and the corresponding births for this thematic block. The “Planning” block exhibited the largest delay, with an average lag of 7.4 months [5.65; 9.19]. Comparison of the average lags for the blocks “Planning,” “Pregnancy Course,” and “Preparation for Childbirth” shows a decreasing trend: 7.4, 6.6, and 6 months, respectively. This pattern is consistent with the logical interpretation of the principal components: from pregnancy planning to childbirth, the expected lag decreases. These results further confirm the adequacy and stability of the proposed SARIMAX-based forecasting method with the selected lags.
Comparison of forecast quality. When constructing demographic forecasts, the accuracy of the resulting estimates is of primary importance. In this section, we analyze forecast accuracy depending on the selected model. Table
The metrics used to evaluate forecast quality were the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and the mean absolute error (MAE), calculated over forecast horizons of 1, 2, and 3 years.
The results show that including components obtained through PCA leads to a significant improvement in forecast accuracy compared to the baseline SARIMA model, which does not include search data. For instance, the baseline SARIMA model had a 1-year MAPE of 4.62%, whereas using PCs from the “All queries” block without lags reduced the error to 3.2%. The greatest improvement, however, was observed when incorporating the lag structure (PCs from the “Preparation for Childbirth” block): in this case, MAPE decreased to 3.1% and MAE to 3,120.7, reflecting the time lag between user behavior online and subsequent demographic responses.
The largest effect of adding PCs and lags among thematic groups was observed in the “Preparation for Childbirth” and “All queries” blocks. Using two components from the “Preparation for Childbirth” block while accounting for lags produced the best results among all tested models: the minimum errors were 2.71% for MAPE and 2,816.9 for MAE over a 3-year forecast horizon. This suggests that the “Preparation for Childbirth” query block is directly related to imminent births, as it includes queries from women who are already aware of an upcoming birth and are actively preparing. This block reflects the actual “activity” of pregnant women, rather than mere interest in the topic, when intentions to give birth may not yet be realized. Such data provide a clear and timely signal for short-term forecasts.
When using all blocks together, some queries may be indirect (e.g., “Planning,” “Other”) and introduce noise, reducing short-term forecast accuracy. Although the “All queries” block sometimes shows slightly lower error metrics, the large number of components and lags reduces the number of observations available for model estimation, complicating robustness testing.
These results confirm the high predictive value of queries related to preparation for childbirth (e.g., maternity hospital, hospital bag, breathing during childbirth). In other blocks, such as “Pregnancy Course” and “Universal Queries,” the addition of components and lags also improves forecast quality, but the effect is less pronounced.
The results of the three-year forecast of the number of births are presented in Fig.
The red and green lines in Fig.
To assess the robustness of the forecast quality metrics, two types of cross-validation
For the baseline SARIMA model (without queries), MAPE ranged from 4.27–4.76% for the sliding window and 3.99–5.17% for the expanding window. For the best-performing model (with search queries and lags), MAPE ranged from 3.11–4.37% for the sliding window and 3.04–3.63% for the expanding window. These results confirm that including search queries improves model accuracy and demonstrates the robustness of the findings.
Furthermore, in all models, there is a consistent decrease in error values (i.e., an increase in forecast accuracy) for both MAPE and MAE as the forecast horizon increases from 1 to 3 years.
Since the MAPE quality metrics showed a substantial decrease, it was important to assess the statistical significance of these changes. To this end, the Diebold-Mariano test was conducted to evaluate whether the differences in forecast accuracy between the models were statistically significant, compared to the baseline SARIMA model without search queries (see Table
In this test, the null hypothesis assumes no difference in forecast accuracy between the compared models and the baseline model.
Cases in which the forecast quality metrics of the extended model statistically outperform the baseline SARIMA model according to the Diebold–Mariano test (with p < 0.1) are highlighted in bold. Values are reported as: DM statistic (p-value).
The results presented in Table
Forecasting horizon. The study revealed an interesting pattern across all models: as the forecast horizon increases from 1 to 3 years in the SARIMA/SARIMAX models, forecast accuracy improves. This may be due to the fact that one-year forecasts are more sensitive to random short-term factors, such as extreme events or anomalies, which are not captured by the model. In contrast, three-year forecasts tend to average out the effects of short-term noise and better capture seasonal cycles and underlying trends, as seasonal patterns become more pronounced and stable over longer horizons.
Inclusion of search queries in the models helps to clarify these trends and strengthens the significance of identified dependencies, thereby improving the accuracy of long-term forecasts. Although the differences in quality metrics are relatively small, this finding may prove valuable for developing population projections using SARIMAX models.
This study did not account for regional differences in population search activity. It can be assumed that the results may vary when moving to the regional level or when forecasting for a specific region.
The stability of the influence of multiple search queries, as well as their dimensionality and composition, was beyond the scope of this study and remains an open question.
Additionally, during different periods – particularly during times of uncertainty, such as pandemics, military conflicts, or economic and political instability – search queries may influence birth rates differently, with varying lags and significance of individual components. This aspect was not addressed in the current study and will be the subject of further research.
This article examined a method for forecasting the birth rate in Russia using Google Trends Index (GTI) search query statistics. The results demonstrate that incorporating search queries and their lags into the classical SARIMA model improves forecast accuracy. Similar findings have been reported in studies for other indicators, with reductions in MAPE ranging from 0.06 to 3.3 percentage points. These results confirm the potential of using online user activity to enhance the accuracy of forecasts for a variety of indicators.
A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of including search queries in SARIMA forecast models across different economic and demographic topics is presented in Table
In this study, the inclusion of search queries improved forecast accuracy: MAPE decreased from 4.2% to 2.96%, and MAE from 4,320.9 to 3,055.2. These differences were statistically significant according to the Diebold – Mariano test.
A subset of search queries was selected using PCA for specific topics related to reproductive behavior: “Pregnancy Planning,” “Pregnancy Progress,” “Preparing for Childbirth,” and “General Queries.” The study analyzed and compared information criteria for several models that included the resulting principal components either collectively or separately, with various lags. The lag depth was initially determined based on the cross-correlation function and the statistical significance of the corresponding coefficients in the estimated forecasting model.
The best 1-year forecast was achieved by the model including the “Preparing for Childbirth” principal components along with their associated lags.
The authors express their gratitude to Elena Sergeevna Vakulenko and the reviewers of the article for their valuable feedback, insightful comments, and suggestions, which contributed to improving and enriching the content of this work.
This study was conducted within the framework of the Research Working Group on Economic and Mathematical Modeling of Demographic Processes and was supported by a grant from the Faculty of Economic Sciences of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Liliya Anatolyevna Rodionova, Ph.D. (economics), Associate professor at the Department of Statistics and Data Analysis, Faculty of Economic Sciences, HSE University, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: lrodionova@hse.ru
Elena Dmitrievna Kopnova, Ph.D. (technical), Associate professor at the Department of Statistics and Data Analysis, Faculty of Economic Sciences, HSE University, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: ekopnova@hse.ru
Svetlana Sergeevna Kamalendinova, Graduate of the Master’s programme in Statistical Analysis in Economics and Research Intern, Research Working Group on Economic and Mathematical Modeling of Demographic Processes at the Faculty of Economic Sciences HSE University, Moscow, Russia E-mail: svetakam2000@gmail.com
Nikita Aleksandrovich Rodionov, Postgraduate Student at the Faculty of Economic Sciences and Research Intern, Research Working Group on Economic and Mathematical Modeling of Demographic Processes at the Faculty of Economic Sciences, HSE University, Moscow, Russia E-mail: narodionov_2@edu.hse.ru
| Coefficient | St. error | z | p-value | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| const | -0,067 | 0.058 | -1.15 | 0.25 | |
| φ1 | -1.058 | 0.048 | -22.02 | < 0.0001 | *** |
| φ2 | -0.797 | 0.049 | -16.37 | < 0.0001 | *** |
| θ1 | -0.687 | 0.105 | -6.56 | < 0.0001 | *** |
Results of the stationarity test search query series using the HEGY test
| Group | Variable | Original series | First difference | Seasonal difference | Order of integrability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning a pregnancy | Preparing for pregnancy | t1 = -2,92*** | d = 0 (stationary) | ||
| F1 = 5,52*** | |||||
| Planning a pregnancy | t1 = -1,45 | t1 = -5,58*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 9,11*** | F1 = 6,86*** | ||||
| How to get pregnant | t1 = -0,42 | t1 = -4,72*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 11,64*** | F1 = 11,62*** | ||||
| Ovulation | t1 = -1,61 | t1 = -4,11*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 10,88*** | F1 = 10,53*** | ||||
| Ovulation calculation | t1 = -1,95 | t1 = -4,75*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 21,16*** | F1 = 18,32*** | ||||
| When does ovulation occur? | t1 = -3,67*** | d = 1 | |||
| F1 = 7,63*** | |||||
| Ovulation calendar | t1 = -0,89 | t1 = -2,45 | t1 = -1,58** | d = 1, D = 1 | |
| F1 = 2,46 | F1 = 2,38 | F1 = 5,92*** | |||
| Days favourable for conception | t1 = 0,03 | t1 = -5,54*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 13,44*** | F1 = 14,30*** | ||||
| ECO | t1 = -1,91 | t1 = -4,23*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 7,14*** | F1 = 7,30*** | ||||
| Ovulation stimulation | t1 = -3,21*** | d = 0 (stationary) | |||
| F1 = 9,14*** | |||||
| Women’s consultation | t1 = -1,48 | t1 = -3,55*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 5,64*** | F1 = 9,36*** | ||||
| Pregnancy (early stages and management) | Signs of pregnancy | t1 = -1,42 | t1 = -5,56*** | d = 1 | |
| F1 = 7,92** | F1 = 7,57*** | ||||
| Delayed menstruation | t1 = -3,61*** | d = 0 (stationary) | |||
| F1 = 12,00*** | |||||
| Pregnancy test | t1 = -3,08** | d = 0 (stationary) | |||
| F1 = 10,66*** | |||||
| hCG | t1 = -2,39 | t1 = -3,86*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 8,12*** | F1 = 8,68*** | ||||
| How to determine pregnancy | t1 = -0,20 | t1 = -2,92** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 6,09*** | F1 = 6,12*** | ||||
| Early pregnancy | t1 = -2,73** | d = 0 (stationary) | |||
| F1 = 7,86*** | |||||
| Pregnancy period | t1 = -1,08 | t1 = -2,32 | t1 = -2,60** | d = 1, D = 1 | |
| F1 = 6,43*** | F1 = 6,78*** | F1 = 6,22*** | |||
| Pregnancy (early stages and management) | Pregnancy due date calculator | t1 = -2,57 | t1 = -4,60*** | d = 1 | |
| F1 = 19,00*** | F1 = 15,70*** | ||||
| Ultrasound during pregnancy | t1 = -1,94 | t1 = -3,73*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 14,23*** | F1 = 14,29*** | ||||
| Toxicosis | t1 = -2,01 | t1 = -4,61*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 8,43*** | F1 = 8,54*** | ||||
| Pregnancy screening | t1 = -1,32 | t1 = -4,33*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 18,67*** | F1 = 17,04*** | ||||
| Pregnancy management | t1 = -1,63 | t1 = -5,12*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 12,95*** | F1 = 10,37*** | ||||
| Vitamins during pregnancy | t1 = -1,07 | t1 = -4,98*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 13,24*** | F1 = 12,78*** | ||||
| Folic acid | t1 = -1,00 | t1 = -3,80*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 3,58** | F1 = 3,55** | ||||
| Contraindications during pregnancy | t1 = -2,64** | d = 0 (stationary) | |||
| F1 = 14,74*** | |||||
| Antibiotics during pregnancy | t1 = -2,48 | t1 = -5,25*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 9,06*** | F1 = 9,34*** | ||||
| Flu during pregnancy | t1 = -2,82** | d = 0 (stationary) | |||
| F1 = 3,28** | |||||
| Nutrition during pregnancy | t1 = -1,31** | d = 0 (stationary) | |||
| F1 = 4,56** | |||||
| Sleep during pregnancy | t1 = -2,52 | t1 = -4,80*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 13,01*** | F1 = 9,94*** | ||||
| Courses for pregnant women | t1 = 0,66 | t1 = -5,73*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 14,70*** | F1 = 10,63*** | ||||
| Books for expectant mothers | t1 = -2,50 | t1 = -6,15*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 17,84*** | F1 = 17,24*** | ||||
| Pregnancy (late stages and preparation for childbirth) | Fetal movements | t1 = -1,13** | d = 0 (stationary) | ||
| F1 = 6,98*** | |||||
| Fetal position | t1 = -0,52 | t1 = -5,29*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 6,71*** | F1 = 7,13*** | ||||
| Harbingers of labour | t1 = 0,50 | t1 = -5,56*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 3,85** | F1 = 4,24** | ||||
| Paired births | t1 = 4,25 | t1 = -3,23*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 6,36*** | F1 = 11,36*** | ||||
| Breathing during childbirth | t1 = -1,21 | t1 = -5,26*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 19,36*** | F1 = 21,74*** | ||||
| Pregnancy (late stages and preparation for childbirth) | Maternity hospital bag | t1 = -2,07 | t1 = -4,95*** | d = 1 | |
| F1 = 6,09*** | F1 = 6,32*** | ||||
| List for the maternity hospital | t1 = -2,61 | t1 = -3,18** | t1 = -6,04*** | d = 1, D = 1 | |
| F1 = 1,56 | F1 = 1,45 | F1 = 26,39*** | |||
| Documents for the maternity hospital | t1 = -1,94 | t1 = -6,55*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 9,19*** | F1 = 8,00*** | ||||
| Maternity hospital | t1 = -0,42 | t1 = -2,76** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 1,23 | F1 = 1,23*** | ||||
| Perinatal center | t1 = -2,01 | t1 = -4,98*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 5,57*** | F1 = 5,72*** | ||||
| C-section | t1 = -0,58 | t1 = -4,64*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 9,36*** | F1 = 8,53*** | ||||
| Natural childbirth | t1 = -1,26 | t1 = -5,10*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 12,36*** | F1 = 11,10*** | ||||
| Stretch mark cream during pregnancy | t1 = -2,04 | t1 = -5,94*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 11,73*** | F1 = 9,97*** | ||||
| Maternity leave | t1 = -2,61*** | d = 0 (stationary) | |||
| F1 = 18,03*** | |||||
| Maternity leave | t1 = 0,30 | t1 = -5,33*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 9,49*** | F1 = 9,66*** | ||||
| Sick leave due to pregnancy | t1 = -1,76 | t1 = -5,31*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 14,37*** | F1 = 13,79*** | ||||
| Postpartum recovery | t1 = -1,55 | t1 = -5,57*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 17,92*** | F1 = 15,49*** | ||||
| Universal queries | Childbirth | t1 = -0,50 | t1 = -3,16** | d = 1 | |
| F1 = 6,21*** | F1 = 6,16*** | ||||
| Pregnancy | t1 = -1,16 | t1 = -5,25*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 10,37*** | F1 = 9,56*** | ||||
| Obstetrician-gynecologist | t1 = -0,95 | t1 = -10,90*** | t1 = -2,16** | d = 1, D = 1 | |
| F1 = 0,04 | F1 = 0,04 | F1 = 3,78*** | |||
| Pregnancy diary | t1 = -3,48*** | t1 = -8,15*** | t1 = -2,75** | d = 1, D = 1 | |
| F1 = 2,11 | F1 = 3,00 | F1 = 6,02*** | |||
| Maternity capital | t1 = -2,09 | t1 = -5,17*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 11,54*** | F1 = 10,46*** | ||||
| Maternity clothes | t1 = -1,85 | t1 = -3,54*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 8,10*** | F1 = 9,22*** | ||||
| Trimester | t1 = -1,44 | t1 = -5,68*** | d = 1 | ||
| F1 = 11,04*** | F1 = 9,96*** |
| Subject | Components | Lags |
|---|---|---|
| PC (“all queries”) | 1 | 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
| 2 | 2, 7, 9, 11, 12 | |
| 3 | 1, 7, 11 | |
| 4 | 1, 2, 12 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 1, 5, 6 | |
| 7 | 1, 7 | |
| 8 | 3 | |
| 9 | 9, 12 | |
| 10 | 9 | |
| 11 | 1, 5, 6 | |
| 12 | 5, 6 | |
| 13 | - | |
| 14 | 1 | |
| 15 | 8, 11 | |
| 16 | - | |
| 17 | 1, 2 | |
| 18 | 9 | |
| 19 | 2,8 | |
| PC “Planning” | 1 | 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 |
| 2 | 8, 10, 11 | |
| 3 | 1, 2, 6 | |
| 4 | - | |
| 5 | 6, 7 | |
| PC “ Pregnancy Management” | 1 | 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12 |
| 2 | 1, 2, 3 | |
| 3 | 1, 5 | |
| 4 | - | |
| 5 | 3, 12 | |
| 6 | 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12 | |
| 7 | 6 | |
| 8 | 7, 9 | |
| PC”Preparation for childbirth” | 1 | 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
| 2 | 1, 2, 4, 5 | |
| 3 | - | |
| 4 | 10, 11 | |
| 5 | 11 | |
| 6 | 4, 8, 9 | |
| PC “Universal Queries” | 1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 |
| 2 | 2, 3, 6, 7 | |
| 3 | 4, 8 |
Forecast quality metrics (MAPE) from cross-validation. SARIMA Model without search queries (sliding window width: 60 months)