Toward Using Twitter Data to Monitor COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnancy: Proof-of-Concept Study of Cohort Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of maternal death, intensive care unit admission, and preterm birth; however, many people who are pregnant refuse to receive COVID-19 vaccination because of a lack of safety data. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this preliminary study was to assess whether Twitter data could be used to identify a cohort for epidemiologic studies of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. Specifically, we examined whether it is possible to identify users who have reported (1) that they received COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy or the periconception period, and (2) their pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We developed regular expressions to search for reports of COVID-19 vaccination in a large collection of tweets posted through the beginning of July 2021 by users who have announced their pregnancy on Twitter. To help determine if users were vaccinated during pregnancy, we drew upon a natural language processing (NLP) tool that estimates the timeframe of the prenatal period. For users who posted tweets with a timestamp indicating they were vaccinated during pregnancy, we drew upon additional NLP tools to help identify tweets that reported their pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: We manually verified the content of tweets detected automatically, identifying 150 users who reported on Twitter that they received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy or the periconception period. We manually verified at least one reported outcome for 45 of the 60 (75%) completed pregnancies. CONCLUSIONS: Given the limited availability of data on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy, Twitter can be a complementary resource for potentially increasing the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant populations. The results of this preliminary study justify the development of scalable methods to identify a larger cohort for epidemiologic studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".