MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296356217 · doi:10.2196/39504

Monitoring Mentions of COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects on Japanese and Indonesian Twitter: Infodemiological Study

2022· article· en· W4296356217 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kiki Ferawati, Kongmeng Liew, Eiji Aramaki, Shoko Wakamiya

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Infodemiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStrategic International Collaborative Research ProgramJapan Science and Technology AgencyJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsIndonesianCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Logistic regressionPopulationSocial mediaAdvertisingMedicineComputer scienceBusinessWorld Wide WebEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The year 2021 was marked by vaccinations against COVID-19, which spurred wider discussion among the general population, with some in favor and some against vaccination. Twitter, a popular social media platform, was instrumental in providing information about the COVID-19 vaccine and has been effective in observing public reactions. We focused on tweets from Japan and Indonesia, 2 countries with a large Twitter-using population, where concerns about side effects were consistently stated as a strong reason for vaccine hesitancy. Objective: This study aimed to investigate how Twitter was used to report vaccine-related side effects and to compare the mentions of these side effects from 2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine types developed by Pfizer and Moderna, in Japan and Indonesia. Methods: We obtained tweet data from Twitter using Japanese and Indonesian keywords related to COVID-19 vaccines and their side effects from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. We then removed users with a high frequency of tweets and merged the tweets from multiple users as a single sentence to focus on user-level analysis, resulting in a total of 214,165 users (Japan) and 12,289 users (Indonesia). Then, we filtered the data to select tweets mentioning Pfizer or Moderna only and removed tweets mentioning both. We compared the side effect counts to the public reports released by Pfizer and Moderna. Afterward, logistic regression models were used to compare the side effects for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for each country. Results: We observed some differences in the ratio of side effects between the public reports and tweets. Specifically, fever was mentioned much more frequently in tweets than would be expected based on the public reports. We also observed differences in side effects reported between Pfizer and Moderna vaccines from Japan and Indonesia, with more side effects reported for the Pfizer vaccine in Japanese tweets and more side effects with the Moderna vaccine reported in Indonesian tweets. Conclusions: We note the possible consequences of vaccine side effect surveillance on Twitter and information dissemination, in that fever appears to be over-represented. This could be due to fever possibly having a higher severity or measurability, and further implications are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR InfodemiologySame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207