MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

YouTube Videos as a Source of Misinformation on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

2019· article· en· W2908399705 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgarySt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCredibilityIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisMisinformationAudience measurementInformation overloadMEDLINEAdvertisingInternal medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Patients frequently use YouTube as a platform for dissemination and consumption of health information. Caregivers and patients affected by idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are likely consumers of this information. Objectives We aimed to determine viewer engagement, quality, and content of YouTube videos on IPF and to compare the provided information with contemporaneous guidelines. Methods We analyzed the first 200 YouTube videos resulting from the search term “idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.” Patient-directed videos containing any information on IPF were eligible. Each video was evaluated for content related to IPF features and treatments that are discussed in clinical practice guidelines, as well as nonrecommended treatments. Video quality was assessed using an adapted Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONCode) scoring instrument and the validated DISCERN instrument (a questionnaire that evaluates the quality of consumer health information). Details of the video source and viewer engagement metrics were recorded for each video. Results A total of 102 videos met eligibility criteria. No videos assessed all content topics, with videos addressing a median of 17% of all potential content items that were highlighted in clinical practice guidelines. Content scores were higher in videos produced by foundations and medical organizations, news/media organizations, and independent medical professionals compared with videos produced by industry, for-profit organizations, and independent nonmedical users. Nonrecommended and/or potentially harmful therapies were described as valid and potentially beneficial treatments for IPF in 17% of videos, with higher viewership and engagement metrics for these videos. HONCode and DISCERN scores that assessed for video reliability, credibility, and quality of information, were poor for all video source types but were lower in videos posted by industry/for profit organizations and independent nonmedical users. Conclusions Patient-directed YouTube videos on IPF frequently provide incomplete and inaccurate information. Videos supporting the use of nonrecommended therapies have higher viewing numbers and user engagement, highlighting the potential risks of using YouTube as a resource for health information. Physicians, professional organizations, and patient support organizations should be aware that YouTube is frequently used by patients. Developing a tool similar to HONCode that applies to YouTube videos would improve the ability to critically and rapidly appraise the quality of online video-disseminated information on IPF.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.308 · 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