MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389569260 · doi:10.2196/52660

Using #ActuallyAutistic on Twitter for Precision Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Machine Learning Study

2023· article· en· W4389569260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aditi Jaiswal, Peter Washington

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSocial mediaAutismAutism spectrum disorderPublic healthMicrobloggingInternet privacyComputer sciencePsychologyData scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The increasing use of social media platforms has given rise to an unprecedented surge in user-generated content, with millions of individuals publicly sharing their thoughts, experiences, and health-related information. Social media can serve as a useful means to study and understand public health. Twitter (subsequently rebranded as “X”) is one such social media platform that has proven to be a valuable source of rich information for both the general public and health officials. We conducted the first study applying Twitter data mining to autism screening. Objective We aimed to study the feasibility of autism screening from Twitter data and discuss the ethical implications of such models. Methods We developed a machine learning model to attempt to distinguish individuals with autism from their neurotypical peers based on the textual patterns from their public communications on Twitter. We collected 6,515,470 tweets from users’ self-identification with autism using “#ActuallyAutistic” and a separate control group. To construct the data set, we targeted English-language tweets using the search query “#ActuallyAutistic” posted from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022. We encrypted all user IDs and stripped the tweets of identifiable information such as the associated email address prior to analysis. From these tweets, we identified unique users who used keywords such as “autism” OR “autistic” OR “neurodiverse” in their profile description and collected all the tweets from their timelines. To build the control group data set, we formulated a search query excluding the hashtag “#ActuallyAutistic” and collected 1000 tweets per day during the same time period. We trained a word2vec model and an attention-based, bidirectional long short-term memory model to validate the performance of per-tweet and per-profile classification models. We deleted the data set and the models after our analysis. Results Our tweet classifier reached a 73% accuracy, a 0.728 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve score, and an 0.71 F1-score using word2vec representations fed into a logistic regression model, while the user profile classifier achieved an 0.78 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve score and an F1-score of 0.805 using an attention-based, bidirectional long short-term memory model. Conclusions We have shown that it is feasible to train machine learning models using social media data to predict use of the #ActuallyAutistic hashtag, an imperfect proxy for self-reported autism. While analyzing textual differences in naturalistic text has the potential to help clinicians screen for autism, there remain ethical questions that must be addressed for such research to move forward and to translate into the real world. While machine learning has the potential to improve behavioral research, there are still a plethora of ethical issues in digital phenotyping studies using social media with respect to user consent of marginalized populations. Achieving this requires a more inclusive approach during the model development process that involves the autistic community directly in the ideation and consent processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207