ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2022
Mining Public Opinions on COVID-19 Vaccination: A Temporal Analysis to Support Combating Misinformation.
Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adherence to national and international vaccine information sources and future pandemic preparedness among Iranian adults in the post-COVID-19 era.BMC public health · 2025Article
- DNA sequence analysis landscape: a comprehensive review of DNA sequence analysis task types, databases, datasets, word embedding methods, and language models.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- The COVID-19 Infodemic on Twitter: A Space and Time Topic Analysis of the Brazilian Immunization Program and Public Trust.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents a study that applied opinion analysis about COVID-19 immunization in Brazil. An initial set of 143,615 tweets was collected containing 49,477 pro- and 44,643 anti-vaccination and 49,495 neutral posts. Supervised classifiers (multinomial naïve Bayes, logistic regression, linear support vector machines, random forests, adaptative boosting, and multilayer perceptron) were tested, and multinomial naïve Bayes, which had the best trade-off between overfitting and correctness, was selected to classify a second set containing 221,884 unclassified tweets. A timeline with the classified tweets was constructed, helping to identify dates with peaks in each polarity and search for events that may have caused the peaks, providing methodological assistance in combating sources of misinformation linked to the spread of anti-vaccination opinion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.