Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29046267›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2017

Identifying Sentiment of Hookah-Related Posts on Twitter.

Jon-Patrick Allem, Jagannathan Ramanujam, Kristina Lerman, Kar-Hai Chu, Tess Boley Cruz, Jennifer B Unger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. AI for Tobacco Control: Identifying Tobacco-Promoting Social Media Content Using Large Language Models.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  4. Spanish-Language Tobacco-Related Posts on Twitter: Content Analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  5. Oral Nicotine Gum Discussions on Twitter: Content Analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Ice Flavor-Related Discussions on Twitter: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Infodemiology and Infoveillance: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jon-Patrick AllemKeck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9135-8689
Jagannathan RamanujamKeck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6701-3656
Kristina LermanUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5071-0575
Kar-Hai ChuUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2486-8846
Tess Boley CruzKeck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5894-1802
Jennifer B UngerKeck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9064-6603
University of Southern California · USKeck Hospital of USC · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

USC Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS) for Vulnerable PopulationsP50CA180905 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI PENTZ, MARY ANN, SAMET, JONATHAN M · 2013 to 2017
$20.1M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA180905
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing popularity of hookah (or waterpipe) use in the United States and elsewhere has consequences for public health because it has similar health risks to that of combustible cigarettes. While hookah use rapidly increases in popularity, social media data (Twitter, Instagram) can be used to capture and describe the social and environmental contexts in which individuals use, perceive, discuss, and are marketed this tobacco product. These data may allow people to organically report on their sentiment toward tobacco products like hookah unprimed by a researcher, without instrument bias, and at low costs.

objectiveThis study describes the sentiment of hookah-related posts on Twitter and describes the importance of debiasing Twitter data when attempting to understand attitudes.

methodsHookah-related posts on Twitter (N=986,320) were collected from March 24, 2015, to December 2, 2016. Machine learning models were used to describe sentiment on 20 different emotions and to debias the data so that Twitter posts reflected sentiment of legitimate human users and not of social bots or marketing-oriented accounts that would possibly provide overly positive or overly negative sentiment of hookah.

resultsFrom the analytical sample, 352,116 tweets (59.50%) were classified as positive while 177,537 (30.00%) were classified as negative, and 62,139 (10.50%) neutral. Among all positive tweets, 218,312 (62.00%) were classified as highly positive emotions (eg, active, alert, excited, elated, happy, and pleasant), while 133,804 (38.00%) positive tweets were classified as passive positive emotions (eg, contented, serene, calm, relaxed, and subdued). Among all negative tweets, 95,870 (54.00%) were classified as subdued negative emotions (eg, sad, unhappy, depressed, and bored) while the remaining 81,667 (46.00%) negative tweets were classified as highly negative emotions (eg, tense, nervous, stressed, upset, and unpleasant). Sentiment changed drastically when comparing a corpus of tweets with social bots to one without. For example, the probability of any one tweet reflecting joy was 61.30% from the debiased (or bot free) corpus of tweets. In contrast, the probability of any one tweet reflecting joy was 16.40% from the biased corpus.

conclusionsSocial media data provide researchers the ability to understand public sentiment and attitudes by listening to what people are saying in their own words. Tobacco control programmers in charge of risk communication may consider targeting individuals posting positive messages about hookah on Twitter or designing messages that amplify the negative sentiments. Posts on Twitter communicating positive sentiment toward hookah could add to the normalization of hookah use and is an area of future research. Findings from this study demonstrated the importance of debiasing data when attempting to understand attitudes from Twitter data.

Indexed as

big databotshookahsentimentsocial mediaTwitterwaterpipe

Identifiers

PMID29046267
PMCPMC5667930
OpenAlexW2766654852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.