Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32070334›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Monitoring stance towards vaccination in twitter messages.

Florian Kunneman, Mattijs Lambooij, Albert Wong, Antal van den Bosch, Liesbeth Mollema

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. An analysis of COVID-19 vaccine sentiments and opinions on Twitter.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021
    Article
  13. Applying Machine Learning to Identify Anti-Vaccination Tweets during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  14. A Review on Human-AI Interaction in Machine Learning and Insights for Medical Applications.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  15. Frontiers in public health · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Florian KunnemanRadboud University, Erasmusplein 1, Nijmegen, 6525, HT, The Netherlands. f.a.kunneman@vu.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1932-3200
Mattijs LambooijDutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721, MA, The Netherlands.
Albert WongDutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721, MA, The Netherlands.
Antal van den BoschRadboud University, Erasmusplein 1, Nijmegen, 6525, HT, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth MollemaDutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721, MA, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe developed a system to automatically classify stance towards vaccination in Twitter messages, with a focus on messages with a negative stance. Such a system makes it possible to monitor the ongoing stream of messages on social media, offering actionable insights into public hesitance with respect to vaccination. At the moment, such monitoring is done by means of regular sentiment analysis with a poor performance on detecting negative stance towards vaccination. For Dutch Twitter messages that mention vaccination-related key terms, we annotated their stance and feeling in relation to vaccination (provided that they referred to this topic). Subsequently, we used these coded data to train and test different machine learning set-ups. With the aim to best identify messages with a negative stance towards vaccination, we compared set-ups at an increasing dataset size and decreasing reliability, at an increasing number of categories to distinguish, and with different classification algorithms.

resultsWe found that Support Vector Machines trained on a combination of strictly and laxly labeled data with a more fine-grained labeling yielded the best result, at an F1-score of 0.36 and an Area under the ROC curve of 0.66, considerably outperforming the currently used sentiment analysis that yielded an F1-score of 0.25 and an Area under the ROC curve of 0.57. We also show that the recall of our system could be optimized to 0.60 at little loss of precision.

conclusionThe outcomes of our study indicate that stance prediction by a computerized system only is a challenging task. Nonetheless, the model showed sufficient recall on identifying negative tweets so as to reduce the manual effort of reviewing messages. Our analysis of the data and behavior of our system suggests that an approach is needed in which the use of a larger training dataset is combined with a setting in which a human-in-the-loop provides the system with feedback on its predictions.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSocial MediaData CollectionHumansNetherlandsROC CurveSupport Vector MachineVaccinationSentiment analysisSocial mediaVaccination

Identifiers

PMID32070334
PMCPMC7029499

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.