Patient and family experience in pediatric spine surgery: a social media analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is little data on patient and caregiver perceptions of spine surgery in children and youth. This study aims to characterize the personal experiences of patients, caregivers, and family members surrounding pediatric spine surgery through a qualitative and quantitative social media analysis. The Twitter application programming interface was searched for keywords related to pediatric spine surgery from inception to March 2022. Relevant tweets and accounts were extracted and subsequently classified using thematic labels. Tweet metadata was collected to measure user engagement via multivariable regression. Sentiment analysis using Natural Language Processing was performed on all tweets with a focus on tweets discussing the personal experiences of patients and caregivers. 2424 tweets from 1847 individual accounts were retrieved for analysis. Patients and caregivers represented 1459 (79.0%) of all accounts. Posts discussed the personal experiences of patients and caregivers in 83.5% of tweets. Pediatric spine surgery research was discussed in a few posts (n=90, 3.7%). Within the personal experience category, 975 (48.17%) tweets were positive, 516 (25.49%) were negative, and 533 (26.34%) were neutral. Presence of a tag (beta: -6.1, 95% CI -9.7 to -2.5) and baseline follower count (beta<0.001, 95% CI <0.001 to <0.001) significantly affected tweet engagement negatively and positively, respectively. Patients and caregivers actively discuss topics related to pediatric spine surgery on Twitter. Posts discussing personal experience are most prevalent, while posts on research are scarce, unlike previous social media studies. Pediatric spine surgeons can leverage this dialogue to better understand the worries and needs of patients and their families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".