MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366003275 · doi:10.1145/3579624

Social Media is not a Health Proxy: Differences Between Social Media and Electronic Health Record Reports of Post-COVID Symptoms

2023· article· en· W4366003275 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Pater, Amanda Coupe, Fayika Farhat Nova, Rachel Pfafman, Jeanne Carroll, Abigal Brouwer, Camden Bohn, Jason Li, Noah Todd, Fen Lei Chang, Shion Guha

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProxy (statistics)Social mediaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Context (archaeology)PandemicTelehealthHealth recordsQualitative researchPsychologyMedicineInternet privacyTelemedicineHealth careComputer scienceSociologyWorld Wide WebDiseasePolitical scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)HistoryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic transformed many aspects of health and daily life. A subset of people who were infected with the virus have ongoing chronic health issues that range in type of symptom and severity. In this study, we conducted a qualitative assessment of self-reported post-COVID symptoms from patients' electronic health records (EHR, n=564) and a randomized collection of Reddit and Twitter posts (n=500 for each). We show the inconsistencies in what types of symptoms are shared between platforms in addition to assessing the severity of the symptoms and how social media characterizations of post-COVID do not tell a complete story of this phenomenon. This research contributes to CSCW health literature by connecting digital traces of post-COVID with EHR data, critiquing the use of social media as a health proxy and points to its potential to add context to the analysis of traditional health data extracted from the EHR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207