Classifying Comments on Social Media Related to Living Kidney Donation: Machine Learning Training and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Living kidney donation currently constitutes approximately a quarter of all kidney donations. There exist barriers that preclude prospective donors from donating, such as medical ineligibility and costs associated with donation. A better understanding of perceptions of and barriers to living donation could facilitate the development of effective policies, education opportunities, and outreach strategies and may lead to an increased number of living kidney donations. Prior research focused predominantly on perceptions and barriers among a small subset of individuals who had prior exposure to the donation process. The viewpoints of the general public have rarely been represented in prior research. OBJECTIVE: The current study designed a web-scraping method and machine learning algorithms for collecting and classifying comments from a variety of online sources. The resultant data set was made available in the public domain to facilitate further investigation of this topic. METHODS: We collected comments using Python-based web-scraping tools from the New York Times, YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit. We developed a set of guidelines for the creation of training data and manual classification of comments as either related to living organ donation or not. We then classified the remaining comments using deep learning. RESULTS: A total of 203,219 unique comments were collected from the above sources. The deep neural network model had 84% accuracy in testing data. Further validation of predictions found an actual accuracy of 63%. The final database contained 11,027 comments classified as being related to living kidney donation. CONCLUSIONS: The current study lays the groundwork for more comprehensive analyses of perceptions, myths, and feelings about living kidney donation. Web-scraping and machine learning classifiers are effective methods to collect and examine opinions held by the general public on living kidney donation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".