Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31682571›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Automatically Appraising the Credibility of Vaccine-Related Web Pages Shared on Social Media: A Twitter Surveillance Study.

Zubair Shah, Didi Surian, Amalie Dyda, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D Mandl, Adam G Dunn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Analysis of the Anti-Vaccine Movement in Social Networks: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Automatic detection of health misinformation: a systematic review.Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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.

Zubair ShahCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7389-3274
Didi SurianCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2299-2971
Amalie DydaCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2806-4834
Enrico CoieraCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6444-6584
Kenneth D MandlDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9781-0477
Adam G DunnCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1720-8209

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTools used to appraise the credibility of health information are time-consuming to apply and require context-specific expertise, limiting their use for quickly identifying and mitigating the spread of misinformation as it emerges.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to estimate the proportion of vaccine-related Twitter posts linked to Web pages of low credibility and measure the potential reach of those posts.

methodsSampling from 143,003 unique vaccine-related Web pages shared on Twitter between January 2017 and March 2018, we used a 7-point checklist adapted from validated tools and guidelines to manually appraise the credibility of 474 Web pages. These were used to train several classifiers (random forests, support vector machines, and recurrent neural networks) using the text from a Web page to predict whether the information satisfies each of the 7 criteria. Estimating the credibility of all other Web pages, we used the follower network to estimate potential exposures relative to a credibility score defined by the 7-point checklist.

resultsThe best-performing classifiers were able to distinguish between low, medium, and high credibility with an accuracy of 78% and labeled low-credibility Web pages with a precision of over 96%. Across the set of unique Web pages, 11.86% (16,961 of 143,003) were estimated as low credibility and they generated 9.34% (1.64 billion of 17.6 billion) of potential exposures. The 100 most popular links to low credibility Web pages were each potentially seen by an estimated 2 million to 80 million Twitter users globally.

conclusionsThe results indicate that although a small minority of low-credibility Web pages reach a large audience, low-credibility Web pages tend to reach fewer users than other Web pages overall and are more commonly shared within certain subpopulations. An automatic credibility appraisal tool may be useful for finding communities of users at higher risk of exposure to low-credibility vaccine communications.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringHumansMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesSocial MediaSocial NetworkingVaccinesVaccinescredibility appraisalhealth misinformationmachine learningsocial media

Identifiers

PMID31682571
PMCPMC6862002

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.