Content Analysis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis-Related Information on Twitter
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Information regarding idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) on the internet is often outdated, inaccurate, and potentially harmful. Twitter is a social media platform that allows users to post content in the form of “tweets”. Objective We sought to assess the prevalence of inaccurate information regarding IPF on Twitter. We hypothesized that foundations and medical organizations would be the least likely to post inaccurate information and that inaccurate tweets would have higher user engagement. Methods All tweets posted between 2011 and 2019 were gathered using “snscrape” on Python 3.8 while searching for the phrase “idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis”. Quantitative analysis was performed to describe trends in IPF-related tweet frequency over time. A subset of tweets made between 2018 and 2019 was screened for verifiable medical statements, which were then analyzed for accuracy compared with contemporary clinical practice guidelines, with descriptive statistics reported. Logistic regression was used to compare tweet accuracy and recommendation of nonindicated therapies across sources, with adjustment for tweet age and character count. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to determine if user engagement (favorites, retweets, and replies) differed between accurate and inaccurate tweets. Results A total of 16,787 tweets were identified between 2011 and 2019. Between 2018 and 2019, 4,861 tweets were included, of which 1,612 (33%) contained verifiable medical statements. Tweets from sources other than foundations or medical organizations were more likely to contain inaccurate information and to recommend nonindicated therapies in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. News and media sources had the highest odds of communicating potentially harmful information in both adjusted (odds ratio [OR], 12.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.87–27.16) and unadjusted (OR, 11.62; 95% CI, 5.70–26.21) analyses when compared with foundations and medical organizations. Tweets containing inaccurate information had significantly lower numbers of favorites and retweets (P < 0.001 for both). Conclusion Misinformation regarding IPF is present on Twitter and is more often presented by news and media sources. Medically inaccurate tweets displayed less user engagement than accurate tweets. This differs from findings on IPF-related information on YouTube and Facebook, which may reflect differences in both author and consumer qualities across social media platforms.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».