Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38488839›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Methods and Annotated Data Sets Used to Predict the Gender and Age of Twitter Users: Scoping Review.

Karen O'Connor, Su Golder, Davy Weissenbacher, Ari Z Klein, Arjun Magge, Graciela Gonzalez-Hernandez

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. 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

6 authors.

Karen O'ConnorDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7709-3813
Su GolderDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8987-5211
Davy WeissenbacherDepartment of Computational Biomedicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8331-3675
Ari Z KleinDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8281-3464
Arjun MaggeDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4109-1346
Graciela Gonzalez-HernandezDepartment of Computational Biomedicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6416-9556

Funding

Social Media Mining for PharmacovigilanceR01LM011176 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, GRACIELA, SHEN, LI · 2012 to 2021
$4.5M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient health data collected from a variety of nontraditional resources, commonly referred to as real-world data, can be a key information source for health and social science research. Social media platforms, such as Twitter (Twitter, Inc), offer vast amounts of real-world data. An important aspect of incorporating social media data in scientific research is identifying the demographic characteristics of the users who posted those data. Age and gender are considered key demographics for assessing the representativeness of the sample and enable researchers to study subgroups and disparities effectively. However, deciphering the age and gender of social media users poses challenges.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature on the prediction of the age and gender of Twitter users and provide an overview of the methods used.

methodsWe searched 15 electronic databases and carried out reference checking to identify relevant studies that met our inclusion criteria: studies that predicted the age or gender of Twitter users using computational methods. The screening process was performed independently by 2 researchers to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the included studies.

resultsOf the initial 684 studies retrieved, 74 (10.8%) studies met our inclusion criteria. Among these 74 studies, 42 (57%) focused on predicting gender, 8 (11%) focused on predicting age, and 24 (32%) predicted a combination of both age and gender. Gender prediction was predominantly approached as a binary classification task, with the reported performance of the methods ranging from 0.58 to 0.96 F

conclusionsOur review found that although automated methods for predicting the age and gender of Twitter users have evolved to incorporate techniques such as deep neural networks, a significant proportion of the attempts rely on traditional machine learning methods, suggesting that there is potential to improve the performance of these tasks by using more advanced methods. Gender prediction has generally achieved a higher reported performance than age prediction. However, the lack of standardized reporting of performance metrics or standard annotated corpora to evaluate the methods used hinders any meaningful comparison of the approaches. Potential biases stemming from the collection and labeling of data used in the studies was identified as a problem, emphasizing the need for careful consideration and mitigation of biases in future studies. This scoping review provides valuable insights into the methods used for predicting the age and gender of Twitter users, along with the challenges and considerations associated with these methods.

Indexed as

Social MediaAdultHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adultageage predictiondemographicsgendergender predictionmachine learningneural networkpredictionreal-world datasocial mediaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID38488839
PMCPMC10980991

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.