MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400218600 · doi:10.2196/59641

Large Language Models Can Enable Inductive Thematic Analysis of a Social Media Corpus in a Single Prompt: Human Validation Study

2024· article· en· W4400218600 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Deiner, Vlad Honcharov, Jiawei Li, Tim K. Mackey, Travis C. Porco, Urmimala Sarkar

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Infodemiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsSocial mediaComputer scienceThematic analysisThematic mapNatural language processingPsychologyLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceSociologyWorld Wide WebGeographyQualitative researchCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Manually analyzing public health-related content from social media provides valuable insights into the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals, shedding light on trends and patterns that can inform public understanding, policy decisions, targeted interventions, and communication strategies. Unfortunately, the time and effort needed from well-trained human subject matter experts makes extensive manual social media listening unfeasible. Generative large language models (LLMs) can potentially summarize and interpret large amounts of text, but it is unclear to what extent LLMs can glean subtle health-related meanings in large sets of social media posts and reasonably report health-related themes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the feasibility of using LLMs for topic model selection or inductive thematic analysis of large contents of social media posts by attempting to answer the following question: Can LLMs conduct topic model selection and inductive thematic analysis as effectively as humans did in a prior manual study, or at least reasonably, as judged by subject matter experts? METHODS: We asked the same research question and used the same set of social media content for both the LLM selection of relevant topics and the LLM analysis of themes as was conducted manually in a published study about vaccine rhetoric. We used the results from that study as background for this LLM experiment by comparing the results from the prior manual human analyses with the analyses from 3 LLMs: GPT4-32K, Claude-instant-100K, and Claude-2-100K. We also assessed if multiple LLMs had equivalent ability and assessed the consistency of repeated analysis from each LLM. RESULTS: The LLMs generally gave high rankings to the topics chosen previously by humans as most relevant. We reject a null hypothesis (P<.001, overall comparison) and conclude that these LLMs are more likely to include the human-rated top 5 content areas in their top rankings than would occur by chance. Regarding theme identification, LLMs identified several themes similar to those identified by humans, with very low hallucination rates. Variability occurred between LLMs and between test runs of an individual LLM. Despite not consistently matching the human-generated themes, subject matter experts found themes generated by the LLMs were still reasonable and relevant. CONCLUSIONS: LLMs can effectively and efficiently process large social media-based health-related data sets. LLMs can extract themes from such data that human subject matter experts deem reasonable. However, we were unable to show that the LLMs we tested can replicate the depth of analysis from human subject matter experts by consistently extracting the same themes from the same data. There is vast potential, once better validated, for automated LLM-based real-time social listening for common and rare health conditions, informing public health understanding of the public's interests and concerns and determining the public's ideas to address them.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.291
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.291
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations35
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR InfodemiologySame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207