Social Media as a Research Tool (SMaaRT) for Risky Behavior Analytics: Methodological Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modifiable risky health behaviors, such as tobacco use, excessive alcohol use, being overweight, lack of physical activity, and unhealthy eating habits, are some of the major factors for developing chronic health conditions. Social media platforms have become indispensable means of communication in the digital era. They provide an opportunity for individuals to express themselves, as well as share their health-related concerns with peers and health care providers, with respect to risky behaviors. Such peer interactions can be utilized as valuable data sources to better understand inter-and intrapersonal psychosocial mediators and the mechanisms of social influence that drive behavior change. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to summarize computational and quantitative techniques facilitating the analysis of data generated through peer interactions pertaining to risky health behaviors on social media platforms. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature in September 2020 by searching three databases-PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus-using relevant keywords, such as "social media," "online health communities," "machine learning," "data mining," etc. The reporting of the studies was directed by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted the required information from the selected studies. RESULTS: The initial search returned a total of 1554 studies, and after careful analysis of titles, abstracts, and full texts, a total of 64 studies were included in this review. We extracted the following key characteristics from all of the studies: social media platform used for conducting the study, risky health behavior studied, the number of posts analyzed, study focus, key methodological functions and tools used for data analysis, evaluation metrics used, and summary of the key findings. The most commonly used social media platform was Twitter, followed by Facebook, QuitNet, and Reddit. The most commonly studied risky health behavior was nicotine use, followed by drug or substance abuse and alcohol use. Various supervised and unsupervised machine learning approaches were used for analyzing textual data generated from online peer interactions. Few studies utilized deep learning methods for analyzing textual data as well as image or video data. Social network analysis was also performed, as reported in some studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our review consolidates the methodological underpinnings for analyzing risky health behaviors and has enhanced our understanding of how social media can be leveraged for nuanced behavioral modeling and representation. The knowledge gained from our review can serve as a foundational component for the development of persuasive health communication and effective behavior modification technologies aimed at the individual and population levels.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.052 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".