Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32490846›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2020

Machine Learning to Detect Self-Reporting of Symptoms, Testing Access, and Recovery Associated With COVID-19 on Twitter: Retrospective Big Data Infoveillance Study.

Tim Mackey, Vidya Purushothaman, Jiawei Li, Neal Shah, Matthew Nali, Cortni Bardier, Bryan Liang, Mingxiang Cai, Raphael Cuomo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing 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

70 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. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Tim MackeyDepartment of Anesthesiology and Division of Global Public Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2191-7833
Vidya PurushothamanGlobal Health Policy Institute, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6270-448X
Jiawei LiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Division of Global Public Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9801-4715
Neal ShahDepartment of Anesthesiology and Division of Global Public Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8670-6124
Matthew NaliDepartment of Anesthesiology and Division of Global Public Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0565-8202
Cortni BardierMasters Program in Global Health, Department of Anthropology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2165-7867
Bryan LiangGlobal Health Policy Institute, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5673
Mingxiang CaiGlobal Health Policy Institute, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6816-5192
Raphael CuomoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Division of Global Public Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8179-0619

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is a global health emergency with over 6 million cases worldwide as of the beginning of June 2020. The pandemic is historic in scope and precedent given its emergence in an increasingly digital era. Importantly, there have been concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 case counts due to issues such as lack of access to testing and difficulty in measuring recoveries.

objectiveThe aims of this study were to detect and characterize user-generated conversations that could be associated with COVID-19-related symptoms, experiences with access to testing, and mentions of disease recovery using an unsupervised machine learning approach.

methodsTweets were collected from the Twitter public streaming application programming interface from March 3-20, 2020, filtered for general COVID-19-related keywords and then further filtered for terms that could be related to COVID-19 symptoms as self-reported by users. Tweets were analyzed using an unsupervised machine learning approach called the biterm topic model (BTM), where groups of tweets containing the same word-related themes were separated into topic clusters that included conversations about symptoms, testing, and recovery. Tweets in these clusters were then extracted and manually annotated for content analysis and assessed for their statistical and geographic characteristics.

resultsA total of 4,492,954 tweets were collected that contained terms that could be related to COVID-19 symptoms. After using BTM to identify relevant topic clusters and removing duplicate tweets, we identified a total of 3465 (<1%) tweets that included user-generated conversations about experiences that users associated with possible COVID-19 symptoms and other disease experiences. These tweets were grouped into five main categories including first- and secondhand reports of symptoms, symptom reporting concurrent with lack of testing, discussion of recovery, confirmation of negative COVID-19 diagnosis after receiving testing, and users recalling symptoms and questioning whether they might have been previously infected with COVID-19. The co-occurrence of tweets for these themes was statistically significant for users reporting symptoms with a lack of testing and with a discussion of recovery. A total of 63% (n=1112) of the geotagged tweets were located in the United States.

conclusionsThis study used unsupervised machine learning for the purposes of characterizing self-reporting of symptoms, experiences with testing, and mentions of recovery related to COVID-19. Many users reported symptoms they thought were related to COVID-19, but they were not able to get tested to confirm their concerns. In the absence of testing availability and confirmation, accurate case estimations for this period of the outbreak may never be known. Future studies should continue to explore the utility of infoveillance approaches to estimate COVID-19 disease severity.

Indexed as

Big DataClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingDiagnostic Self EvaluationHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMachine LearningPandemicsPneumonia, ViralPublic Health SurveillanceRetrospective StudiesSelf ReportSocial MediaCOVID-19infoveillancemachine learningsurveillanceTwitter

Identifiers

PMID32490846
PMCPMC7282475

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.