Online Health Monitoring using Facebook Advertisement Audience Estimates in the United States: Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Facebook, the most popular social network with over one billion daily users, provides rich opportunities for its use in the health domain. Though much of Facebook's data are not available to outsiders, the company provides a tool for estimating the audience of Facebook advertisements, which includes aggregated information on the demographics and interests, such as weight loss or dieting, of Facebook users. This paper explores the potential uses of Facebook ad audience estimates for eHealth by studying the following: (1) for what type of health conditions prevalence estimates can be obtained via social media and (2) what type of marker interests are useful in obtaining such estimates, which can then be used for recruitment within online health interventions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand the limitations and capabilities of using Facebook ad audience estimates for public health monitoring and as a recruitment tool for eHealth interventions. METHODS: We use the Facebook Marketing application programming interface to correlate estimated sizes of audiences having health-related interests with public health data. Using several study cases, we identify both potential benefits and challenges in using this tool. RESULTS: We find several limitations in using Facebook ad audience estimates, for example, using placebo interest estimates to control for background level of user activity on the platform. Some Facebook interests such as plus-size clothing show encouraging levels of correlation (r=.74) across the 50 US states; however, we also sometimes find substantial correlations with the placebo interests such as r=.68 between interest in Technology and Obesity prevalence. Furthermore, we find demographic-specific peculiarities in the interests on health-related topics. CONCLUSIONS: Facebook's advertising platform provides aggregate data for more than 190 million US adults. We show how disease-specific marker interests can be used to model prevalence rates in a simple and intuitive manner. However, we also illustrate that building effective marker interests involves some trial-and-error, as many details about Facebook's black box remain opaque.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".