MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624447704 · doi:10.1071/hc16048

Breast cancer information communicated on a public online platform: an analysis of ‘Yahoo! Answer Japan’

2017· article· en· W2624447704 on OpenAlexaff
An Ohigashi, Salim Ahmed, Arfan R. Afzal, Naoko Shigeta, Helen Tam‐Tham, Hideyuki Kanda, Yoshihiro Ishikawa, Tanvir Chowdhury Turin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Primary Health Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineThe InternetBreast cancer awarenessPopulationHealth informationFamily medicineCancerInternet privacyWorld Wide WebHealth careInternal medicineComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Japan is a developed country with high use of Internet and online platforms for health information. 'Yahoo! Answer Japan' is the most commonly used question-and-answer service in Japan. AIM To explore the information users seek regarding breast cancer from the 'Yahoo! Answer Japan' web portal. METHODS The 'Yahoo! Answer Japan' portal was searched for the key word 'breast cancer' and all questions searched for the period of 1 January to 31 December 2014 were obtained. The selected questions related to human breast cancer and were not advertisements or promotional material. The questions were categorized using a coding schema. High and low access of the questions were defined by the number of view-counts. RESULTS Among the 2392 selected questions, six major categories were identified; (1) suspected breast cancer, (2) breast cancer screening, (3) treatment of breast cancer, (4) life with breast cancer, (5) prevention of breast cancer and (6) others. The highest number of questions were treatment related (28.8%) followed by suspected breast cancer-related questions (23.4%) and screening-related questions (20%). Statistical analysis revealed that the treatment-related questions were more likely to be highly accessed. CONCLUSION Content analysis of Internet question-answer communities is important, as questions posted on these sites would serve as a rich source of direct reflection regarding the health-related information needs of the general population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Primary Health CareSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207