Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37526069›Full record

ArticleGM crops & food2023

GMO discussion on Twitter.

Dmitry Erokhin, Nadejda Komendantova

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GM crops & food, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dmitry ErokhinAdvancing Systems Analysis, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-5191-0579
Nadejda KomendantovaAdvancing Systems Analysis, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper focuses on analyzing discussions related to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) on Twitter, with a specific focus on the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. The authors collected and analyzed 1,048,274 English tweets related to GMOs between January 2020 and December 2022 using the Twitter API. The tweets were subjected to topical and sentiment analysis to identify the prevalent themes and attitudes toward GMOs. 30.92% of the tweets in the observed period were negative, 21.65% were neutral, and 47.43% were positive. The authors identified four clusters of tweets associated with misinformation or conspiracy theories: GMOs and vaccines, GMOs and COVID-19, GMOs and Monsanto, and GMOs and Bill Gates. The findings of this analysis can inform strategies for combating the spread of false information and conspiracies on social media and improve public understanding and trust in GMO technology.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaCommunicationPlants, Genetically ModifiedConspiracyGMOmisinformationsentiment analysisTwitter

Identifiers

PMID37526069
PMCPMC10395250
OpenAlexW4385442474

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.