Search Term Identification Methods for Computational Health Communication: Word Embedding and Network Approach for Health Content on YouTube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Common methods for extracting content in health communication research typically involve using a set of well-established queries, often names of medical procedures or diseases, that are often technical or rarely used in the public discussion of health topics. Although these methods produce high recall (ie, retrieve highly relevant content), they tend to overlook health messages that feature colloquial language and layperson vocabularies on social media. Given how such messages could contain misinformation or obscure content that circumvents official medical concepts, correctly identifying (and analyzing) them is crucial to the study of user-generated health content on social media platforms. OBJECTIVE: Health communication scholars would benefit from a retrieval process that goes beyond the use of standard terminologies as search queries. Motivated by this, this study aims to put forward a search term identification method to improve the retrieval of user-generated health content on social media. We focused on cancer screening tests as a subject and YouTube as a platform case study. METHODS: We retrieved YouTube videos using cancer screening procedures (colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test, mammogram, and pap test) as seed queries. We then trained word embedding models using text features from these videos to identify the nearest neighbor terms that are semantically similar to cancer screening tests in colloquial language. Retrieving more YouTube videos from the top neighbor terms, we coded a sample of 150 random videos from each term for relevance. We then used text mining to examine the new content retrieved from these videos and network analysis to inspect the relations between the newly retrieved videos and videos from the seed queries. RESULTS: The top terms with semantic similarities to cancer screening tests were identified via word embedding models. Text mining analysis showed that the 5 nearest neighbor terms retrieved content that was novel and contextually diverse, beyond the content retrieved from cancer screening concepts alone. Results from network analysis showed that the newly retrieved videos had at least one total degree of connection (sum of indegree and outdegree) with seed videos according to YouTube relatedness measures. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a retrieval technique to improve recall and minimize precision loss, which can be extended to various health topics on YouTube, a popular video-sharing social media platform. We discussed how health communication scholars can apply the technique to inspect the performance of the retrieval strategy before investing human coding resources and outlined suggestions on how such a technique can be extended to other health contexts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".