The Early Detection of Fraudulent COVID-19 Products From Twitter Chatter: Data Set and Baseline Approach Using Anomaly Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Social media has served as a lucrative platform for spreading misinformation and for promoting fraudulent products for the treatment, testing, and prevention of COVID-19. This has resulted in the issuance of many warning letters by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While social media continues to serve as the primary platform for the promotion of such fraudulent products, it also presents the opportunity to identify these products early by using effective social media mining methods. Objective Our objectives were to (1) create a data set of fraudulent COVID-19 products that can be used for future research and (2) propose a method using data from Twitter for automatically detecting heavily promoted COVID-19 products early. Methods We created a data set from FDA-issued warnings during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used natural language processing and time-series anomaly detection methods for automatically detecting fraudulent COVID-19 products early from Twitter. Our approach is based on the intuition that increases in the popularity of fraudulent products lead to corresponding anomalous increases in the volume of chatter regarding them. We compared the anomaly signal generation date for each product with the corresponding FDA letter issuance date. We also performed a brief manual analysis of chatter associated with 2 products to characterize their contents. Results FDA warning issue dates ranged from March 6, 2020, to June 22, 2021, and 44 key phrases representing fraudulent products were included. From 577,872,350 posts made between February 19 and December 31, 2020, which are all publicly available, our unsupervised approach detected 34 out of 44 (77.3%) signals about fraudulent products earlier than the FDA letter issuance dates, and an additional 6 (13.6%) within a week following the corresponding FDA letters. Content analysis revealed misinformation, information, political, and conspiracy theories to be prominent topics. Conclusions Our proposed method is simple, effective, easy to deploy, and does not require high-performance computing machinery unlike deep neural network–based methods. The method can be easily extended to other types of signal detection from social media data. The data set may be used for future research and the development of more advanced methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".