Automatically Identifying Twitter Users for Interventions to Support Dementia Family Caregivers: Annotated Data Set and Benchmark Classification Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 6 million people in the United States have Alzheimer disease and related dementias, receiving help from more than 11 million family or other informal caregivers. A range of traditional interventions has been developed to support family caregivers; however, most of them have not been implemented in practice and remain largely inaccessible. While recent studies have shown that family caregivers of people with dementia use Twitter to discuss their experiences, methods have not been developed to enable the use of Twitter for interventions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to develop an annotated data set and benchmark classification models for automatically identifying a cohort of Twitter users who have a family member with dementia. METHODS: Between May 4 and May 20, 2021, we collected 10,733 tweets, posted by 8846 users, that mention a dementia-related keyword, a linguistic marker that potentially indicates a diagnosis, and a select familial relationship. Three annotators annotated 1 random tweet per user to distinguish those that indicate having a family member with dementia from those that do not. Interannotator agreement was 0.82 (Fleiss kappa). We used the annotated tweets to train and evaluate support vector machine and deep neural network classifiers. To assess the scalability of our approach, we then deployed automatic classification on unlabeled tweets that were continuously collected between May 4, 2021, and March 9, 2022. RESULTS: -score of 0.962 (precision=0.946 and recall=0.979) for the class of tweets indicating that the user has a family member with dementia. The classifier detected 128,838 tweets that indicate having a family member with dementia, posted by 74,290 users between May 4, 2021, and March 9, 2022-that is, approximately 7500 users per month. CONCLUSIONS: Our annotated data set can be used to automatically identify Twitter users who have a family member with dementia, enabling the use of Twitter on a large scale to not only explore family caregivers' experiences but also directly target interventions at these users.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".