MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404845840 · doi:10.2196/52886

Exploring the Social Media Discussion of Breast Cancer Treatment Choices: Quantitative Natural Language Processing Study

2024· article· en· W4404845840 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daphna Y. Spiegel, Isabel D. Friesner, Travis Zack, Gianna Yan, Julia Willcox, Nicolas D. Prionas, Lisa Singer, Catherine C. Park, Julian C. Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsPreprintNatural (archaeology)Social mediaBreast cancerProcess (computing)Computer scienceCancerMedicineWorld Wide WebHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Early-stage breast cancer has the complex challenge of carrying a favorable prognosis with multiple treatment options, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. Social media is increasingly used as a source of information and as a decision tool for patients, and awareness of these conversations is important for patient counseling. Objective: The goal of this study was to compare sentiments and associated emotions in social media discussions surrounding BCS and mastectomy using natural language processing (NLP). Methods: Reddit posts and comments from the Reddit subreddit r/breastcancer and associated metadata were collected using pushshift.io. Overall, 105,231 paragraphs across 59,416 posts and comments from 2011 to 2021 were collected and analyzed. Paragraphs were processed through the Apache Clinical Text Analysis Knowledge Extraction System and identified as discussing BCS or mastectomy based on physician-defined Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) concepts. Paragraphs were analyzed with a VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary for Sentiment Reasoning) compound sentiment score (ranging from -1 to 1, corresponding to negativity or positivity) and GoEmotions scores (0-1) corresponding to the intensity of 27 different emotions and neutrality. Results: Of the 105,231 paragraphs, there were 7306 (6.94% of those analyzed) paragraphs mentioning BCS and mastectomy (2729 and 5476, respectively). Discussion of both increased over time, with BCS outpacing mastectomy. The median sentiment score for all discussions analyzed in aggregate became more positive over time. In specific analyses by topic, positive sentiments for discussions with mastectomy mentions increased over time; however, discussions with BCS-specific mentions did not show a similar trend and remained overall neutral. Compared to BCS, conversations about mastectomy tended to have more positive sentiments. The most commonly identified emotions included neutrality, gratitude, caring, approval, and optimism. Anger, annoyance, disappointment, disgust, and joy increased for BCS over time. Conclusions: Patients are increasingly participating in breast cancer therapy discussions with a web-based community. While discussions surrounding mastectomy became increasingly positive, BCS discussions did not show the same trend. This mirrors national clinical trends in the United States, with the increasing use of mastectomy over BCS in early-stage breast cancer. Recognizing sentiments and emotions surrounding the decision-making process can facilitate patient-centric and emotionally sensitive treatment recommendations.

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)0.000
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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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