Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35783149›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on computational social systems2021

COVIDSenti: A Large-Scale Benchmark Twitter Data Set for COVID-19 Sentiment Analysis.

Usman Naseem, Imran Razzak, Matloob Khushi, Peter W Eklund, Jinman Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on computational social systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A global portrait of expressed mental health signals towards COVID-19 in social media space.International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation : ITC journal · 2023
    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

5 authors.

Usman NaseemSchool of Computer ScienceThe University of Sydney Ultimo NSW 2006 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0191-7171
Imran RazzakSchool of Information TechnologyDeakin University Geelong VIC 3217 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3930-6600
Matloob KhushiSchool of Computer ScienceThe University of Sydney Ultimo NSW 2006 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7792-2327
Peter W EklundSchool of Information TechnologyDeakin University Geelong VIC 3217 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-8603
Jinman KimSchool of Computer ScienceThe University of Sydney Ultimo NSW 2006 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-1060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media (and the world at large) have been awash with news of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the passage of time, news and awareness about COVID-19 spread like the pandemic itself, with an explosion of messages, updates, videos, and posts. Mass hysteria manifest as another concern in addition to the health risk that COVID-19 presented. Predictably, public panic soon followed, mostly due to misconceptions, a lack of information, or sometimes outright misinformation about COVID-19 and its impacts. It is thus timely and important to conduct an

Indexed as

COVID-19epidemicmisinformationopinion miningpandemicsentiment analysistext miningTwitter

Identifiers

PMID35783149
PMCPMC8545013

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.