Electronic Cigarette Users' Perspective on the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study Using Twitter Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) users might be more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection and could develop more severe symptoms if they contract the disease owing to their impaired immune responses to viral infections. Social media platforms such as Twitter have been widely used by individuals worldwide to express their responses to the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to examine the longitudinal changes in the attitudes of Twitter users who used e-cigarettes toward the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as compare differences in attitudes between e-cigarette users and nonusers based on Twitter data. METHODS: The study dataset containing COVID-19-related Twitter posts (tweets) posted between March 5 and April 3, 2020, was collected using a Twitter streaming application programming interface with COVID-19-related keywords. Twitter users were classified into two groups: Ecig group, including users who did not have commercial accounts but posted e-cigarette-related tweets between May 2019 and August 2019, and non-Ecig group, including users who did not post any e-cigarette-related tweets. Sentiment analysis was performed to compare sentiment scores towards the COVID-19 pandemic between both groups and determine whether the sentiment expressed was positive, negative, or neutral. Topic modeling was performed to compare the main topics discussed between the groups. RESULTS: The US COVID-19 dataset consisted of 4,500,248 COVID-19-related tweets collected from 187,399 unique Twitter users in the Ecig group and 11,479,773 COVID-19-related tweets collected from 2,511,659 unique Twitter users in the non-Ecig group. Sentiment analysis showed that Ecig group users had more negative sentiment scores than non-Ecig group users. Results from topic modeling indicated that Ecig group users had more concerns about deaths due to COVID-19, whereas non-Ecig group users cared more about the government's responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that Twitter users who tweeted about e-cigarettes had more concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings can inform public health practitioners to use social media platforms such as Twitter for timely monitoring of public responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and educating and encouraging current e-cigarette users to quit vaping to minimize the risks associated with COVID-19.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".