Worldwide Presence of National Anesthesia Societies on Four Major Social Networks in 2021: Observational Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the presence of medical societies on social networks (SNs) could be interesting for disseminating professional information, there is no study investigating their presence on SNs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this viewpoint is to describe the worldwide presence and activity of national anesthesia societies on SNs. METHODS: This observational study assessed the active presence (≥1 post in the year preceding the collection date) of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists member societies on the SNs Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. We collected data concerning each anesthesia society on the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists website. RESULTS: Among the 136 societies, 66 (48.5%) had an active presence on at least one SN. The most used SN was Facebook (n=60, 44.1%), followed by Twitter (n=37, 27.2%), YouTube (n=26, 19.1%), and Instagram (n=16, 11.8%). The SN with the largest number of followers was Facebook for 52 (78.8%) societies and Twitter for 12 (18.2%) societies. The number of followers was 361 (IQR 75-1806) on Twitter, 2494 (IQR 1049-5369) on Facebook, 1400 (IQR 303-3058) on Instagram, and 214 (IQR 33-955) on YouTube. There was a strong correlation between the number of posts and the number of followers on Twitter (r=0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.97; P<.001), Instagram (r=0.83, 95% CI 0.58-0.94; P<.001), and YouTube (r=0.69, 95% CI 0.42-0.85; P<.001). According to the density of anesthetists in the country, there was no difference between societies with and without active SN accounts. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of national anesthesia societies have at least one active account on SNs. Twitter and Facebook are the most used SNs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".