Effects of Intervention Timing on Health-Related Fake News: Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fake health-related news has spread rapidly through the internet, causing harm to individuals and society. Despite interventions, a fenbendazole scandal recently spread among patients with lung cancer in South Korea. It is crucial to intervene appropriately to prevent the spread of fake news. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the appropriate timing of interventions to minimize the side effects of fake news. METHODS: A simulation was conducted using the susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) model, which is a representative model of the virus spread mechanism. We applied this model to the fake news spread mechanism. The parameters were set similarly to those in the digital environment, where the fenbendazole scandal occurred. NetLogo, an agent-based model, was used as the analytical tool. RESULTS: Fake news lasted 278 days in the absence of interventions. As a result of adjusting and analyzing the timing of the intervention in response to the fenbendazole scandal, we found that faster intervention leads to a shorter duration of fake news (intervention at 54 days = fake news that lasted for 210 days; intervention at 16 days = fake news that lasted for 187 days; and intervention at 10 days = fake news that lasted for 157 days). However, no significant differences were observed when the intervention was performed within 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions implemented within 10 days were effective in reducing the duration of the spread of fake news. Our findings suggest that timely intervention is critical for preventing the spread of fake news in the digital environment. Additionally, a monitoring system that can detect fake news should be developed for a rapid response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".