Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34417007›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2020

A natural language processing pipeline to advance the use of Twitter data for digital epidemiology of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Ari Z Klein, Haitao Cai, Davy Weissenbacher, Lisa D Levine, Graciela Gonzalez-Hernandez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Ari Z KleinDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: ariklein@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Haitao CaiDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: hcai@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Davy WeissenbacherDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: dweissen@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Lisa D LevineMaternal and Child Health Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: Lisa.Levine@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Graciela Gonzalez-HernandezDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: gragon@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Funding

Social Media Mining for PharmacovigilanceR01LM011176 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, GRACIELA, SHEN, LI · 2012 to 2021
$4.5M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United States, 17% of pregnancies end in fetal loss: miscarriage or stillbirth. Preterm birth affects 10% of live births in the United States and is the leading cause of neonatal death globally. Preterm births with low birthweight are the second leading cause of infant mortality in the United States. Despite their prevalence, the causes of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth are largely unknown.

objectiveThe primary objectives of this study are to (1) assess whether women report miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth, among others, on Twitter, and (2) develop natural language processing (NLP) methods to automatically identify users from which to select cases for large-scale observational studies.

methodsWe handcrafted regular expressions to retrieve tweets that mention an adverse pregnancy outcome, from a database containing more than 400 million publicly available tweets posted by more than 100,000 users who have announced their pregnancy on Twitter. Two annotators independently annotated 8109 (one random tweet per user) of the 22,912 retrieved tweets, distinguishing those reporting that the user has personally experienced the outcome ("outcome" tweets) from those that merely mention the outcome ("non-outcome" tweets). Inter-annotator agreement was κ = 0.90 (Cohen's kappa). We used the annotated tweets to train and evaluate feature-engineered and deep learning-based classifiers. We further annotated 7512 (of the 8109) tweets to develop a generalizable, rule-based module designed to filter out reported speech-that is, posts containing what was said by others-prior to automatic classification. We performed an extrinsic evaluation assessing whether the reported speech filter could improve the detection of women reporting adverse pregnancy outcomes on Twitter.

resultsThe tweets annotated as "outcome" include 1632 women reporting miscarriage, 119 stillbirth, 749 preterm birth or premature labor, 217 low birthweight, 558 NICU admission, and 458 fetal/infant loss in general. A deep neural network, BERT-based classifier achieved the highest overall F

conclusionThis study demonstrates that (1) women do report their adverse pregnancy outcomes on Twitter, (2) our NLP pipeline can automatically identify users from which to select cases for large-scale observational studies, and (3) our reported speech filter would reduce the cost of annotating health-related social media data and can significantly improve the overall performance of feature-based classifiers.

Indexed as

Data miningEpidemiologyMachine learningNatural language processingPregnancySocial media

Identifiers

PMID34417007
PMCPMC11524020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.