Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37713243›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Exploring YouTube's Recommendation System in the Context of COVID-19 Vaccines: Computational and Comparative Analysis of Video Trajectories.

Yee Man Margaret Ng, Katherine Hoffmann Pham, Miguel Luengo-Oroz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on breast engorgement.International breastfeeding journal · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Beyond Caregiving: Daily Pleasant Activities Among Caregivers to Older Adults With and Without Dementia.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. 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.

Yee Man Margaret NgUN Global Pulse, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5043-9159
Katherine Hoffmann PhamUN Global Pulse, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1022-6025
Miguel Luengo-OrozUN Global Pulse, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8694-2001

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a concern that social media may contribute to vaccine hesitancy due to the wide availability of antivaccine content on social media platforms. YouTube has stated its commitment to removing content that contains misinformation on vaccination. Nevertheless, such claims are difficult to audit. There is a need for more empirical research to evaluate the actual prevalence of antivaccine sentiment on the internet.

objectiveThis study examines recommendations made by YouTube's algorithms in order to investigate whether the platform may facilitate the spread of antivaccine sentiment on the internet. We assess the prevalence of antivaccine sentiment in recommended videos and evaluate how real-world users' experiences are different from the personalized recommendations obtained by using synthetic data collection methods, which are often used to study YouTube's recommendation systems.

methodsWe trace trajectories from a credible seed video posted by the World Health Organization to antivaccine videos, following only video links suggested by YouTube's recommendation system. First, we gamify the process by asking real-world participants to intentionally find an antivaccine video with as few clicks as possible. Having collected crowdsourced trajectory data from respondents from (1) the World Health Organization and United Nations system (n

resultsWe found no evidence that YouTube promotes antivaccine content; the average share of antivaccine videos remained well below 6% at all steps in users' recommendation trajectories. However, the watch histories of users significantly affect video recommendations, suggesting that data from the application programming interface or from a clean browser do not offer an accurate picture of the recommendations that real users are seeing. Real users saw slightly more provaccine content as they advanced through their recommendation trajectories, whereas synthetic users were drawn toward irrelevant recommendations as they advanced. Rather than antivaccine content, videos recommended by YouTube are likely to contain health-related content that is not specifically related to vaccination. These videos are usually longer and contain more popular content.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that the common perception that YouTube's recommendation system acts as a "rabbit hole" may be inaccurate and that YouTube may instead be following a "blockbuster" strategy that attempts to engage users by promoting other content that has been reliably successful across the platform.

Indexed as

Communications MediaCOVID-19Social MediaCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsCOVID-19 Vaccinesalgorithmic auditingantivaccine sentimentcrowdsourcingrecommendation systemswatch historyYouTube

Identifiers

PMID37713243
PMCPMC10506664

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.