Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36477698›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

A social media network analysis of trypophobia communication.

Xanat Vargas Meza, Shinichi Koyama

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Xanat Vargas MezaFaculty of Library, Information and Media Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. kt_designbox@yahoo.com.
Shinichi KoyamaFaculty of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Trypophobia has attracted scientific attention in recent years. Few related studies have recruited participants using online methods, and even less is known about health communication in an environment where trypophobia was first widely discussed (i.e., the Internet). This study describes communication patterns in a Facebook group for trypophobia by detecting frequent topics, top contributors, and their discourses. We identified key commenters and performed word frequency analysis, word co-occurrence analysis, topic modeling, and content analysis. Impactful users posted and replied more often when discussing peer-reviewed science. Triggering content was actively removed by the group administrators. A wide variety of triggers not discussed in trypophobia-related literature were frequently mentioned. However, there was a lack of discussion on peer-reviewed treatments. The combination of a few expert and many supportive amateur gatekeepers willing to understand trypophobia, along with active monitoring by administrators, might contribute to in-group trust and the sharing of peer-reviewed science by top users of the trypophobia Facebook group.

Indexed as

Social MediaCommunicationHumans

Identifiers

PMID36477698
PMCPMC9729576

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.