Identification of Myths and Misinformation About Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder on Social Media: Infodemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health misinformation and myths about treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) are present on social media and contribute to challenges in preventing drug overdose deaths. However, no systematic, quantitative methodology exists to identify what types of misinformation are being shared and discussed. OBJECTIVE: We developed a multistage analytic pipeline to assess social media posts from Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X), YouTube, Reddit, and Drugs-Forum for the presence of health misinformation about treatment for OUD. METHODS: Our approach first used document embeddings to identify potential new statements of misinformation from known myths. These statements were grouped into themes using hierarchical agglomerative clustering, and public health experts then reviewed the results for misinformation. RESULTS: We collected a total of 19,953,599 posts discussing opioid-related content across the aforementioned platforms. Our multistage analytic pipeline identified 7 main clusters or discussion themes. Among a high-yield data set of posts (n=303) for further public health expert review, these included discussion about potential treatments for OUD (90/303, 29.8%), the nature of addiction (68/303, 22.5%), pharmacologic properties of substances (52/303, 16.9%), injection drug use (36/303, 11.9%), pain and opioids (28/303, 9.3%), physical dependence of medications (22/303, 7.2%), and tramadol use (7/303, 2.3%). A public health expert review of the content within each cluster identified the presence of misinformation and myths beyond those used as seed myths to initialize the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying and addressing misinformation through appropriate communication strategies could be an increasingly important component of preventing overdose deaths. To further this goal, we developed and tested an approach to aid in the identification of myths and misinformation about OUD from large-scale social media content.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".