Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35039760›Full record

ArticleThe European physical journal. Special topics2022

Fake or real news about COVID-19? Pretrained transformer model to detect potential misleading news.

SreeJagadeesh Malla, P J A Alphonse

Abstract readNews
In one paragraph

Article in The European physical journal. Special topics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. When Infodemic Meets Epidemic: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Health Misinformation Detection: Approaches, Challenges and Opportunities.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

2 authors.

SreeJagadeesh MallaDepartment of Computer Applications, National Institute of Technology, Thuvakudi, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620015 India.ORCID 0000-0002-2223-0793
P J A AlphonseDepartment of Computer Applications, National Institute of Technology, Thuvakudi, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620015 India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus disease 2019 a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Along with the coronavirus pandemic, a new crisis has emerged, characterized by widespread fear and panic caused by a lack of information or, in some cases, outright fake messages. In these circumstances, Twitter is one of the most eminent and trusted social media platforms. Fake tweets, on the other hand, are challenging to detect and differentiate. The primary goal of this paper is to educate society about the importance of accurate information and prevent the spread of fake information. This paper has investigated COVID-19 fake data from various social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. The objective of this paper is to categorize given tweets as either fake or real news. The authors have tested various deep learning models on the COVID-19 fake dataset. Finally, the CT-BERT and RoBERTa deep learning models outperformed other deep learning models like BERT, BERTweet, AlBERT, and DistlBERT. The proposed ensemble deep learning architecture outperformed CT-BERT and RoBERTa on the COVID-19 fake news dataset using the multiplicative fusion technique. The proposed model's performance in this technique was determined by the multiplicative product of the final predictive values of CT-BERT and RoBERTa. This technique overcomes the disadvantage of these CT-BERT and RoBERTa models' incorrect predictive nature. The proposed architecture outperforms both well-known ML and DL models, with 98.88% accuracy and a 98.93% F1-score.

Identifiers

PMID35039760
PMCPMC8756170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.