Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34623312›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021

Categorizing Vaccine Confidence With a Transformer-Based Machine Learning Model: Analysis of Nuances of Vaccine Sentiment in Twitter Discourse.

Per E Kummervold, Sam Martin, Sara Dada, Eliz Kilich, Chermain Denny, Pauline Paterson, Heidi J Larson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Transformers and large language models in healthcare: A review.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2024
    Review
  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
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

7 authors.

Per E KummervoldVaccine Research Department, FISABIO-Public Health, Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1007-0945
Sam MartinCentre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4466-8374
Sara DadaFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3910-1856
Eliz KilichFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0928-8293
Chermain DennyFaculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2449-1345
Pauline PatersonFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4166-8248
Heidi J LarsonFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8477-7583

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media has become an established platform for individuals to discuss and debate various subjects, including vaccination. With growing conversations on the web and less than desired maternal vaccination uptake rates, these conversations could provide useful insights to inform future interventions. However, owing to the volume of web-based posts, manual annotation and analysis are difficult and time consuming. Automated processes for this type of analysis, such as natural language processing, have faced challenges in extracting complex stances such as attitudes toward vaccination from large amounts of text.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to build upon recent advances in transposer-based machine learning methods and test whether transformer-based machine learning could be used as a tool to assess the stance expressed in social media posts toward vaccination during pregnancy.

methodsA total of 16,604 tweets posted between November 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, were selected using keyword searches related to maternal vaccination. After excluding irrelevant tweets, the remaining tweets were coded by 3 individual researchers into the categories Promotional, Discouraging, Ambiguous, and Neutral or No Stance. After creating a final data set of 2722 unique tweets, multiple machine learning techniques were trained on a part of this data set and then tested and compared with the human annotators.

resultsWe found the accuracy of the machine learning techniques to be 81.8% (F score=0.78) compared with the agreed score among the 3 annotators. For comparison, the accuracies of the individual annotators compared with the final score were 83.3%, 77.9%, and 77.5%.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that we are able to achieve close to the same accuracy in categorizing tweets using our machine learning models as could be expected from a single human coder. The potential to use this automated process, which is reliable and accurate, could free valuable time and resources for conducting this analysis, in addition to informing potentially effective and necessary interventions.

Indexed as

computer sciencehealth humanitiesinformation technologymachine learningpublic healthvaccines

Identifiers

PMID34623312
PMCPMC8538052

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.