Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34917575›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2021

A Framework of AI-Based Approaches to Improving eHealth Literacy and Combating Infodemic.

Tianming Liu, Xiang Xiao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. COVID-19 and theHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Tianming LiuDepartment of Computer Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.
Xiang XiaoDepartment of Network and New Media, College of Humanities and Arts, Hunan International Economics University, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global COVID-19 pandemic has put everyone in an urgent need of accessing and comprehending health information online. Meanwhile, there has been vast amount of information/misinformation/disinformation generated over the Internet, particularly social media platforms, resulting in an infodemic. This public health crisis of COVID-19 pandemic has put each individual and the entire society in a test: what is the level of eHealth literacy is needed to seek accurate health information from online resources and to combat infodemic during a pandemic? This article aims to summarize the significances and challenges of improving eHealth literacy in both communicable (e.g., COVID-19) and non-communicable diseases [e.g., cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs)]. Also, this article will make our recommendations of a general framework of AI-based approaches to improving eHealth literacy and combating infodemic, including AI-augmented lifelong learning, AI-assisted translation, simplification, and summarization, and AI-based content filtering. This general framework of AI-based approaches to improving eHealth literacy and combating infodemic has the general advantage of matching the right online health information to the right people.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelemedicineArtificial IntelligenceDisinformationHumansInfodemicLiteracyPandemicsSARS-CoV-2AIeducationeHealth literacyinfodemicpublic health

Identifiers

PMID34917575
PMCPMC8669242

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.