MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414534860 · doi:10.2196/73980

Stillbirth Discourse on Instagram and X (Formerly Twitter): Content Analysis

2025· article· en· W4414534860 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abigail Paradise Vit, Daniel Fraidin, Yaniv S. Ovadia

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Infodemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisinformationContent analysisDiscourse analysisNarrativeHealth communicationModerationGriefPublic healthExpression (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Stillbirth, the loss of a fetus after the 20th week of pregnancy, affects about 1 in 160 deliveries in the United States and nearly 1 in 70 globally. It profoundly affects parents, often resulting in grief, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, exacerbated by societal stigma and a lack of public awareness. However, no comprehensive analysis has explored social media discussions of stillbirth. Objective: This study aimed to analyze stillbirth-related content on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter) by (1) identifying dominant themes using topic modeling, evaluated using latent Dirichlet allocation, non-negative matrix factorization (NMF), and BERTopic; (2) detecting influential hashtags via co-occurrence network analysis; (3) examining sentiments and emotions using transformer-based models; (4) categorizing visual representations of stillbirth on Instagram (Meta) through manual image analysis with a predefined codebook; and (5) screening for misinformation relating to stillbirth on X. Methods: Stillbirth-related posts were collected via RapidAPI (N=27,395), with Instagram posts (#stillbirth: n=7415; #stillbirthawareness: n=8312; 2023-2024) and X posts (#stillbirth: n=11,668; 2020-2024) analyzed using Python 3.12.7 (Python Software Foundation), with NetworkX for hashtag co-occurrence networks and the PageRank algorithm; comparative analyses were restricted to 2023-2024 due to Instagram application programming interface constraints. Topic modeling was evaluated using latent Dirichlet allocation, NMF, and BERTopic, with coherence scores guiding our model selection. Sentiment and emotion were analyzed using transformer-based RoBERTa and DistilRoBERTa. Misinformation screening was applied to X posts. On Instagram, 2 representative image samples (n=366) were manually categorized using a predefined codebook, with the interrater reliability being assessed using Cohen Kappa. Results: Health-related hashtags (eg, #COVID19) appeared more frequently on X. Topic modeling showed that NMF achieved the highest coherence scores (#stillbirthawareness=0.624 and #stillbirth=0.846 on Instagram, #stillbirth=0.816 on X). Medical misinformation appeared in 27.8% (149/536) of tweets linking COVID-19 vaccines to stillbirth. In the image analysis, "Image of text" was most common, followed by remembrance visuals (eg, gravesites and stillborn infants). The interrater reliability was strong, κ=0.837 (95% CI 0.773-0.891) and κ=0.821 (95% CI 0.755-0.879), with high Pearson correlation (r=0.999; P<.001) and no significant difference (χ²7=12.4; P=.09). The sentiment analysis found that positive sentiments exceeded negative sentiments. The emotion analysis showed that fear and sadness were dominant, with fear being more prevalent on X. Conclusions: Instagram emphasizes emotional expression while X focuses on public health and informational content. Evidence-based communication is necessary to counter misinformation, especially on X, whose real-time affordances amplify fear-based narratives during crises, such as COVID-19. In addition, Instagram's visual and commemorative content offers an opportunity to legitimize parental grief and to validate and humanize loss by directly involving bereaved parents in awareness campaigns. Platform-specific strategies and stronger moderation could enhance health discourse credibility. Future research should examine targeted approaches to counter misinformation and assist affected populations.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 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 InfodemiologySame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207