ArticleSocial network analysis and mining2023
Deep learning-based credibility conversation detection approaches from social network.
Article in Social network analysis and mining, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the social networks that have become most exploited sources of information, such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter, have been considered the main sources of non-credible information. False information on these social networks has a negative impact on the credibility of conversations. In this article, we propose a new deep learning-based credibility conversation detection approach in social network environments, called CreCDA. CreCDA is based on: (i) the combination of post and user features in order to detect credible and non-credible conversations; (ii) the integration of multi-dense layers to represent features more deeply and to improve the results; (iii) sentiment calculation based on the aggregation of tweets. In order to study the performance of our approach, we have used the standard PHEME dataset. We compared our approach with the main approaches we have studied in the literature. The results of this evaluation show the effectiveness of sentiment analysis and the combination of text and user levels to analyze conversation credibility. We recorded the mean precision of credible and non-credible conversations at 79%, the mean recall at 79%, the mean F1-score at 79%, the mean accuracy at 81%, and the mean G-Mean at 79%.
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.