MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766075374 · doi:10.2196/ijmr.8612

Alzheimer’s Disease in Social Media: Content Analysis of YouTube Videos

2017· article· en· W2766075374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weizhou Tang, Kate Olscamp, Seul Ki Choi, Daniela B. Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaContent analysisContent (measure theory)Internet privacyAdvertisingComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSociologyBusinessSocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5.5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in 2017. YouTube is a popular platform for disseminating health information; however, little is known about messages specifically regarding AD that are being communicated through YouTube. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine video characteristics, content, speaker characteristics, and mobilizing information (cues to action) of YouTube videos focused on AD. METHODS: Videos uploaded to YouTube from 2013 to 2015 were searched with the term "Alzheimer's disease" on April 30th, 2016. Two coders viewed the videos and coded video characteristics (the date when a video was posted, Uniform Resource Locator, video length, audience engagement, format, author), content, speaker characteristics (sex, race, age), and mobilizing information. Descriptive statistics were used to examine video characteristics, content, audience engagement (number of views), speaker appearances in the video, and mobilizing information. Associations between variables were examined using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Among the 271 videos retrieved, 25.5% (69/271) were posted by nonprofit organizations or universities. Informal presentations comprised 25.8% (70/271) of all videos. Although AD symptoms (83/271, 30.6%), causes of AD (80/271, 29.5%), and treatment (76/271, 28.0%) were commonly addressed, quality of life of people with AD (34/271, 12.5%) had more views than those more commonly-covered content areas. Most videos featured white speakers (168/187, 89.8%) who were adults aged 20 years to their early 60s (164/187, 87.7%). Only 36.9% (100/271) of videos included mobilizing information. Videos about AD symptoms were significantly less likely to include mobilizing information compared to videos without AD symptoms (23/83, 27.7% vs 77/188, 41.0% respectively; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes new knowledge regarding AD messages delivered through YouTube. Findings of the current study highlight a potential gap between available information and viewers' interests. YouTube videos on AD could be beneficial if the messages delivered meet users' needs and provide mobilizing information for further resources. Study findings will be useful to government agencies, researchers, nonprofit organizations that promote information about AD, and those responsible for social media to provide useful and accurate health information for the public.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.448
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207