Potential Impact of a Paper About COVID-19 and Smoking on Twitter Users’ Attitudes Toward Smoking: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A cross-sectional study (Miyara et al, 2020) conducted by French researchers showed that the rate of current daily smoking was significantly lower in patients with COVID-19 than in the French general population, implying a potentially protective effect of smoking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the dissemination of the Miyara et al study among Twitter users and whether a shift in their attitudes toward smoking occurred after its publication as preprint on April 21, 2020. METHODS: Twitter posts were crawled between April 14 and May 4, 2020, by the Tweepy stream application programming interface, using a COVID-19-related keyword query. After filtering, the final 1929 tweets were classified into three groups: (1) tweets that were not related to the Miyara et al study before it was published, (2) tweets that were not related to Miyara et al study after it was published, and (3) tweets that were related to Miyara et al study after it was published. The attitudes toward smoking, as expressed in the tweets, were compared among the above three groups using multinomial logistic regression models in the statistical analysis software R (The R Foundation). RESULTS: Temporal analysis showed a peak in the number of tweets discussing the results from the Miyara et al study right after its publication. Multinomial logistic regression models on sentiment scores showed that the proportion of negative attitudes toward smoking in tweets related to the Miyara et al study after it was published (17.07%) was significantly lower than the proportion in tweets that were not related to the Miyara et al study, either before (44/126, 34.9%; P<.001) or after the Miyara et al study was published (68/198, 34.3%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The public's attitude toward smoking shifted in a positive direction after the Miyara et al study found a lower incidence of COVID-19 cases among daily smokers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".