Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33764882›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2021

"Thought I'd Share First" and Other Conspiracy Theory Tweets from the COVID-19 Infodemic: Exploratory Study.

Dax Gerts, Courtney D Shelley, Nidhi Parikh, Travis Pitts, Chrysm Watson Ross, Geoffrey Fairchild, Nidia Yadria Vaquera Chavez, Ashlynn R Daughton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Automatic detection of health misinformation: a systematic review.Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Online News Coverage of COVID-19 Long Haul Symptoms.Journal of community health · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Dax Gerts *Analytics, Intelligence, and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9445-9573
Courtney D Shelley *Analytics, Intelligence, and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5497-7453
Nidhi ParikhAnalytics, Intelligence, and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5707-6124
Travis PittsAnalytics, Intelligence, and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9381-9423
Chrysm Watson RossAnalytics, Intelligence, and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5989-3830
Geoffrey FairchildAnalytics, Intelligence, and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5500-8120
Nidia Yadria Vaquera ChavezAnalytics, Intelligence, and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4382-5710
Ashlynn R DaughtonAnalytics, Intelligence, and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1694-3268

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak has left many people isolated within their homes; these people are turning to social media for news and social connection, which leaves them vulnerable to believing and sharing misinformation. Health-related misinformation threatens adherence to public health messaging, and monitoring its spread on social media is critical to understanding the evolution of ideas that have potentially negative public health impacts.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to use Twitter data to explore methods to characterize and classify four COVID-19 conspiracy theories and to provide context for each of these conspiracy theories through the first 5 months of the pandemic.

methodsWe began with a corpus of COVID-19 tweets (approximately 120 million) spanning late January to early May 2020. We first filtered tweets using regular expressions (n=1.8 million) and used random forest classification models to identify tweets related to four conspiracy theories. Our classified data sets were then used in downstream sentiment analysis and dynamic topic modeling to characterize the linguistic features of COVID-19 conspiracy theories as they evolve over time.

resultsAnalysis using model-labeled data was beneficial for increasing the proportion of data matching misinformation indicators. Random forest classifier metrics varied across the four conspiracy theories considered (F1 scores between 0.347 and 0.857); this performance increased as the given conspiracy theory was more narrowly defined. We showed that misinformation tweets demonstrate more negative sentiment when compared to nonmisinformation tweets and that theories evolve over time, incorporating details from unrelated conspiracy theories as well as real-world events.

conclusionsAlthough we focus here on health-related misinformation, this combination of approaches is not specific to public health and is valuable for characterizing misinformation in general, which is an important first step in creating targeted messaging to counteract its spread. Initial messaging should aim to preempt generalized misinformation before it becomes widespread, while later messaging will need to target evolving conspiracy theories and the new facets of each as they become incorporated.

Indexed as

CommunicationCOVID-19HumansInformation DisseminationSocial Media5Gactive learningcommunicationconspiracyconspiracy theoriescoronavirusCOVID-19health communicationinfodemicinfodemiologymachine learningmisinformationpublic healthrandom forestsocial mediasupervised learningTwitterunsupervised learningvaccinevaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID33764882
PMCPMC8048710

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.