COVID-19 and Vitamin D Misinformation on YouTube: Content Analysis (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The “infodemic” accompanying the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic has the potential to increase avoidable spread as well as engagement in risky health behaviors. Although social media platforms, such as YouTube, can be an inexpensive and effective method of sharing accurate health information, inaccurate and misleading information shared on YouTube can be dangerous for viewers. The confusing nature of data and claims surrounding the benefits of vitamin D, particularly in the prevention or cure of COVID-19, influences both viewers and the general “immune boosting” commercial interest. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to ascertain how information on vitamin D and COVID-19 was presented on YouTube in 2020. METHODS YouTube video results for the search terms “COVID,” “coronavirus,” and “vitamin D” were collected and analyzed for content themes and deemed useful or misleading based on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content. Qualitative content analysis and simple statistical analysis were used to determine the prevalence and frequency of concerning content, such as confusing correlation with causation regarding vitamin D benefits. RESULTS In total, 77 videos with a combined 10,225,763 views (at the time of data collection) were included in the analysis, with over three-quarters of them containing misleading content about COVID-19 and vitamin D. In addition, 45 (58%) of the 77 videos confused the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19, with 46 (85%) of 54 videos stating that vitamin D has preventative or curative abilities. The major contributors to these videos were medical professionals with YouTube accounts. Vitamin D recommendations that do not align with the current literature were frequently suggested, including taking supplementation higher than the recommended safe dosage or seeking intentional solar UV radiation exposure. CONCLUSIONS The spread of misinformation is particularly alarming when spread by medical professionals, and existing data suggesting vitamin D has immune-boosting abilities can add to viewer confusion or mistrust in health information. Further, the suggestions made in the videos may increase the risks of other poor health outcomes, such as skin cancer from solar UV radiation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".