Vaccine Adverse Event Mining of Twitter Conversations: 2-Phase Classification Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional monitoring for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) relies on various established reporting systems, where there is inevitable lag between an AEFI occurring and its potential reporting and subsequent processing of reports. AEFI safety signal detection strives to detect AEFI as early as possible, ideally close to real time. Monitoring social media data holds promise as a resource for this. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to investigate the utility of monitoring social media for gaining early insights into vaccine safety issues, by extracting vaccine adverse event mentions (VAEMs) from Twitter, using natural language processing techniques. The secondary aims are to document the natural language processing techniques used and identify the most effective of them for identifying tweets that contain VAEM, with a view to define an approach that might be applicable to other similar social media surveillance tasks. METHODS: A VAEM-Mine method was developed that combines topic modeling with classification techniques to extract maximal VAEM posts from a vaccine-related Twitter stream, with high degree of confidence. The approach does not require a targeted search for specific vaccine reaction-indicative words, but instead, identifies VAEM posts according to their language structure. RESULTS: score of 0.91 in the classification phase. CONCLUSIONS: Social media can assist with the detection of vaccine safety signals as a valuable complementary source for monitoring mentions of vaccine adverse events. A social media-based VAEM data stream can be assessed for changes to detect possible emerging vaccine safety signals, helping to address the well-recognized limitations of passive reporting systems, including lack of timeliness and underreporting.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".