MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413770379 · doi:10.2196/82923

Videos on Bilibili, TikTok, and Xiaohongshu as Sources of Medical Information for Adenoid Hypertrophy: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis (Preprint)

2025· preprint· en· W4413770379 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li Zhong, S K Chen, Wen Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPreprintAdenoid hypertrophyEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer sciencePathologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> The clinical diagnosis rate of adenoid hypertrophy in children has been rising continuously in recent years, attracting great attention from parents. There are many popular science videos about adenoid hypertrophy on short video platforms such as Bilibili, TikTok, and Xiaohongshu. It is worth noting that the quality and reliability of the popular science content related to adenoid hypertrophy on these platforms remain unknown. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study aimed to evaluate the completeness, understandability, actionability, reliability, and overall quality of short videos on adenoid hypertrophy from Bilibili, TikTok, and Xiaohongshu. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Collected 220 adenoid hypertrophy videos from three platforms,two researchers independently assessed quality using content completeness,PEMAT-A/V, modified DISCERN, and GQS. Cross-platform comparisons and Spearman’s correlation were performed. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Bilibili videos had the longest median duration (113.50 s) and significantly outperformed TikTok and Xiaohongshu videos in terms of completeness, understandability, and reliability (p&lt;0.05), achieving the highest overall quality. Xiaohongshu videos showed greater interactivity and actionability than those on Bilibili and TikTok. Videos produced by medical professionals are easier to understand. Correlation analysis revealed a strong positive correlation between the video duration and completeness (ρ=0.641). Interaction indicators showed high correlations among themselves (ρ&gt;0.8) but no significant correlation with duration (ρ≤0.2).Notably, no substantial relationship was observed between the interaction indicators and video quality. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> The content, reliability, and quality of videos on adenoid hypertrophy across short video platforms are unsatisfactory and need improvement.Overall, Bilibili provides the highest video quality and Xiaohongshu excels in interactivity. Videos produced by medical professionals are easier to understand. Platforms should enhance oversight and optimize algorithms to promote high-quality health video content. </sec>

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207