Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37125220›Full record

ArticleSN computer science2023

What are IBD Patients Talking About on Twitter? Using Natural Language Understanding to Investigate Patients' Tweets.

Maya Stemmer, Yisrael Parmet, Gilad Ravid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SN computer science, 2023. 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

3 authors.

Maya StemmerBen-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, 8410501 Beer-Sheva, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-7572-4327
Yisrael ParmetBen-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, 8410501 Beer-Sheva, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-2071-7338
Gilad RavidBen-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, 8410501 Beer-Sheva, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-0471-6538

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research aims to investigate what patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are talking about on Twitter and learn from the experimental knowledge they share online. The study presents a framework for analyzing patients' tweets and comparing their content to tweets of the general population. We started by constructing two datasets of tweets-a dataset of patients' tweets and a control dataset for comparison. Then, we thematically classified the tweets and obtained a subset of tweets related to health and nutrition. We used a Dirichlet regression to compare the thematic segmentations of the two groups. We continued by extracting keywords from the filtered tweets and applying entity sentiment analysis to determine the patients' sentiments towards the extracted keywords. Finally, we detected emotions within the tweets and used a Wilcoxon test to compare the emotions conveyed in each group. We found statistically significant differences between the patients' thematic segmentations and those of the control group and observed significant differences in the emotions each group expressed while talking about health. Not only do patients talk more about health in comparison to the general Twitter population, but they also address the subject with negative sentiments and express more negative emotions. The personal information IBD patients share on Twitter can be used to derive complementary knowledge about the disease and provide an additional foundation to existing medical research on IBD. The four stages of the study are also feasible to extend to other chronic conditions.

Indexed as

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)Natural language understanding (NLU)Sentiment analysisThematic analysisTwitter

Identifiers

PMID37125220
PMCPMC10117261

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.