MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396692870 · doi:10.2196/52061

Pediatric Cancer Communication on Twitter: Natural Language Processing and Qualitative Content Analysis

2024· article· en· W4396692870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nancy Lau, Xin Zhao, Alison O’Daffer, Hannah Weissman, Krysta S. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsSentiment analysisSocial mediaLexiconContent analysisComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter (recently rebranded as "X") was the most widely used social media platform with over 2 million cancer-related tweets. The increasing use of social media among patients and family members, providers, and organizations has allowed for novel methods of studying cancer communication. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine pediatric cancer-related tweets to capture the experiences of patients and survivors of cancer, their caregivers, medical providers, and other stakeholders. We assessed the public sentiment and content of tweets related to pediatric cancer over a time period representative of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: All English-language tweets related to pediatric cancer posted from December 11, 2019, to May 7, 2022, globally, were obtained using the Twitter application programming interface. Sentiment analyses were computed based on Bing, AFINN, and NRC lexicons. We conducted a supplemental nonlexicon-based sentiment analysis with ChatGPT (version 3.0) to validate our findings with a random subset of 150 tweets. We conducted a qualitative content analysis to manually code the content of a random subset of 800 tweets. RESULTS: A total of 161,135 unique tweets related to pediatric cancer were identified. Sentiment analyses showed that there were more positive words than negative words. Via the Bing lexicon, the most common positive words were support, love, amazing, heaven, and happy, and the most common negative words were grief, risk, hard, abuse, and miss. Via the NRC lexicon, most tweets were categorized under sentiment types of positive, trust, and joy. Overall positive sentiment was consistent across lexicons and confirmed with supplemental ChatGPT (version 3.0) analysis. Percent agreement between raters for qualitative coding was 91%, and the top 10 codes were awareness, personal experiences, research, caregiver experiences, patient experiences, policy and the law, treatment, end of life, pharmaceuticals and drugs, and survivorship. Qualitative content analysis showed that Twitter users commonly used the social media platform to promote public awareness of pediatric cancer and to share personal experiences with pediatric cancer from the perspective of patients or survivors and their caregivers. Twitter was frequently used for health knowledge dissemination of research findings and federal policies that support treatment and affordable medical care. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter may serve as an effective means for researchers to examine pediatric cancer communication and public sentiment around the globe. Despite the public mental health crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic, overall sentiments of pediatric cancer-related tweets were positive. Content of pediatric cancer tweets focused on health and treatment information, social support, and raising awareness of pediatric cancer.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207