Impact of #PsychTwitter in promoting global psychiatry: A hashtag analysis study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple studies have shown how valuable Twitter hashtags can be for promoting content related to different themes in the online community. This arena has grown into a rich data source for public health observation and understanding key trends in healthcare on a global scale. In the field of mental health in particular, it would be of benefit to understand and report the key stakeholders' (individual mental health professionals, academic organizations and their countries) trends and patterns of psychiatric knowledge and information dissemination using #PsychTwitter. Objective: In this study, we aim to evaluate the achieved outreach of psychiatry-related tweets using the hashtag #PsychTwitter. Methods: We utilized the Symplur Signals research analytics tool to characterize tweets containing #PsychTwitter from the 20th of August, 2019, to the 20th of August, 2022. Results: The #PsychTwitter movement resulted in 125,297 tweets that were shared by 40,058 Twitter users and generated a total of 492,565,230 impressions (views). The three largest identified groups of contributors were Doctors (13.8% of all tweets), Org. Advocacy (6.2% of all tweets), and Researcher/Academic (4% of all tweets) stakeholders. The top influential accounts consisted of 55 psychiatrists and 16 institutional or organizational accounts. The top 5 countries from where most of the tweets containing #PsychTwitter were shared include the United States (54.3% of all users), the United Kingdom (10.4% of all users), Canada (4.9% of all users), India (2% of all users), and Australia (1.8% of all users). Conclusion: This is the first of its kind study featuring the influence and usage of #PsychTwitter and covering its global impact in the field of psychiatry using the Twitter platform. Our results indicate that Twitter represents a broadly used platform for mental health-related discussions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".