The Assessment of Twitter’s Potential for Outbreak Detection: Avian Influenza Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media services such as Twitter are valuable sources of information for surveillance systems. A digital syndromic surveillance system has several advantages including its ability to overcome the problem of time delay in traditional surveillance systems. Despite the progress made with using digital syndromic surveillance systems, the possibility of tracking avian influenza (AI) using online sources has not been fully explored. In this study, a Twitter-based data analysis framework was developed to automatically monitor avian influenza outbreaks in a real-time manner. The framework was implemented to find worrisome posts and alerting news on Twitter, filter irrelevant ones, and detect the onset of outbreaks in several countries. The system collected and analyzed over 209,000 posts discussing avian influenza on Twitter from July 2017 to November 2018. We examined the potential of Twitter data to represent the date, severity and virus type of official reports. Furthermore, we investigated whether filtering irrelevant tweets can positively impact the performance of the system. The proposed approach was empirically evaluated using a real-world outbreak-reporting source. We found that 75% of real-world outbreak notifications of AI were identifiable from Twitter. This shows the capability of the system to serve as a complementary approach to official AI reporting methods. Moreover, we observed that one-third of outbreak notifications were reported on Twitter earlier than official reports. This feature could augment traditional surveillance systems and provide a possibility of early detection of outbreaks. This study could potentially provide a first stepping stone for building digital disease outbreak warning systems to assist epidemiologists and animal health professionals in making relevant decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".