Monitoring Physical Activity Levels Using Twitter Data: Infodemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media technology such as Twitter allows users to share their thoughts, feelings, and opinions online. The growing body of social media data is becoming a central part of infodemiology research as these data can be combined with other public health datasets (eg, physical activity levels) to provide real-time monitoring of psychological and behavior outcomes that inform health behaviors. Currently, it is unclear whether Twitter data can be used to monitor physical activity levels. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of using Twitter data to monitor physical activity levels by assessing whether the frequency and sentiment of physical activity-related tweets were associated with physical activity levels across the United States. METHODS: Tweets were collected from Twitter's application programming interface (API) between January 10, 2017 and January 2, 2018. We used Twitter's garden hose method of collecting tweets, which provided a random sample of approximately 1% of all tweets with location metadata falling within the United States. Geotagged tweets were filtered. A list of physical activity-related hashtags was collected and used to further classify these geolocated tweets. Twitter data were merged with physical activity data collected as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Multiple linear regression models were fit to assess the relationship between physical activity-related tweets and physical activity levels by county while controlling for population and socioeconomic status measures. RESULTS: =.11). The sentiment of the physical activity-related tweets was not a significant predictor of physical activity level and age-adjusted physical activity on a county level after including the Gini index and education level in the model (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Social media data may be a valuable tool for public health organizations to monitor physical activity levels, as it can overcome the time lag in the reporting of physical activity epidemiology data faced by traditional research methods (eg, surveys and observational studies). Consequently, this tool may have the potential to help public health organizations better mobilize and target physical activity interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".