Analyzing Public Conversations About Heart Disease and Heart Health on Facebook From 2016 to 2021: Retrospective Observational Study Applying Latent Dirichlet Allocation Topic Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in men and women in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic has further led to increases in various long-term cardiovascular complications. OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed public conversations related to heart disease and heart health on Facebook in terms of their thematic topics and sentiments. In addition, it provided in-depth analyses of 2 subtopics with important practical implications: heart health for women and heart health during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We collected 34,885 posts and 51,835 comments spanning from June 2016 to June 2021 that were related to heart disease and health from public Facebook pages and groups. We used latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling to extract discussion topics illuminating the public's interests and concerns regarding heart disease and heart health. We also used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc) to identify public sentiments regarding heart health. RESULTS: We observed an increase in discussions related to heart health on Facebook. Posts and comments increased from 3102 and 3632 in 2016 to 8550 (176% increase) and 14,617 (302% increase) in 2021, respectively. Overall, 35.37% (12,340/34,885) of the posts were created after January 2020, the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, 39.21% (13,677/34,885) of the posts were by nonprofit health organizations. We identified 6 topics in the posts (heart health promotion, personal experiences, risk-reduction education, heart health promotion for women, educational information, and physicians' live discussion sessions). We identified 6 topics in the comments (personal experiences, survivor stories, risk reduction, religion, medical questions, and appreciation of physicians and information on heart health). During the pandemic (from January 2020 to June 2021), risk reduction was a major topic in both posts and comments. Unverified information on alternative treatments and promotional content was also prevalent. Among all posts, 14.91% (5200/34,885) were specifically about heart health for women centering on local event promotion and distinctive symptoms of heart diseases for women. CONCLUSIONS: Our results tracked the public's ongoing discussions on heart disease and heart health on one prominent social media platform, Facebook. The public's discussions and information sharing on heart health increased over time, especially since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Various levels of health organizations on Facebook actively promoted heart health information and engaged a large number of users. Facebook presents opportunities for more targeted heart health interventions that can reach and engage diverse populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".