An Innovative Use of Twitter to Disseminate and Promote Medical Student Scholarship During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the cancellation of in-person learning activities forced every aspect of medical education and student engagement to pivot to a web-based format, including activities supporting the performance and dissemination of scholarly work. At that time, social media had been used to augment in-person conference learning, but it had not been used as the sole platform for scholarly abstract presentations. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the feasibility of using Twitter to provide a completely web-based forum for real-time dissemination of and engagement with student scholarly work as an alternative to a traditional in-person poster presentation session. METHODS: The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University launched an online Medical Student Scholarship Forum, using Twitter as a platform for students to present scholarly work and prepare for future web-based presentations. A single student forum participant created posts using a standardized template that incorporated student research descriptions, uniform promotional hashtags, and individual poster presentations. Tweets were released over 5 days and analytic data were collected from the Twitter platform. Outcome measures included impressions, engagements, retweets, likes, media engagements, and average daily engagement rate. RESULTS: During the conference, the student leader published 63 tweets promoting the work of 58 students (55 medical and 3 dental students) over 5 days. During the forum and the following week, tweets from the @BrodyDistinctly Twitter account received 63,142 impressions and 7487 engagements, including 187 retweets, 1427 likes, and 2082 media engagements. During the 5 days of the forum, the average daily engagement rate was 12.72%. CONCLUSIONS: Using Twitter as a means of scholarly dissemination resulted in a larger viewing community compared to a traditional in-person event. Early evidence suggests that social media platforms may be an alternative to traditional scholarly presentations. Presenting via Twitter allowed students to receive instantaneous feedback and effectively network with wider academic communities. Additional research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge uptake, feedback, and networking.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".