EPID-15. GUIDELINES FOR THE OPTIMAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR NEURO-ONCOLOGISTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Approximately 80,000 new Americans are diagnosed with a brain tumor annually. Social media (SM) has emerged as a powerful tool for patient empowerment. Its effective utilization by healthcare professionals is vital for better connection to patients and dissemination of evidence-based information. OBJECTIVES: To develop guidelines for optimal utilization of SM by neuro-oncologists, through a review of user engagement with content posted on SM relating to brain tumors. METHODS Facebook (FB) and Twitter (TW) were searched using the term Brain Tumor. Page/account information such as user type, media (image/video) utilization in posts, and audience size (likes / followers) were recorded. Average activity and account annual growth (AAG) were calculated. Top qualitative themes were assigned. Correlations were assessed with Pearson’s test. RESULTS FB was predominantly used by organizations (64% of accounts) and provided a larger audience (67 pages,581 likes) than TW (25 accounts, 67,295 followers), which had similar proportion of personal (44%) and organizational accounts (52%). Charity & Fundraising (67%) was the top FB theme. Education & Research (72%) was the top TW theme. In FB, the page’s annual growth (PAG) was not related to rate of monthly posting or the length of activity on FB, but presence on other concurrent platforms (Rho: 0.59) was influential for PAG and audience size (p < 0.05). In TW, quantity of monthly tweets (Rho: 0.66) and media utilization (Rho: 0.78) significantly correlated with audience size and AAG (p-values < 0.05). CONCLUSION A multi-platform SM presence and use of relatable images/videos have a strong impact on both FB and TW engagement. FB is a stronger platform for organizations valuable for charity and fundraising. Multi-platform presence is more important than frequent posts on FB. TW is equally used by organizations and individuals, serving as an excellent medium for dissemination of research and educational material.
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 | 0.002 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".