Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38512326›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Using Natural Language Processing to Explore Social Media Opinions on Food Security: Sentiment Analysis and Topic Modeling Study.

Annika Molenaar, Dickson Lukose, Linda Brennan, Eva L Jenkins, Tracy A McCaffrey

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
22.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Social Listening as a Tool to Understand Nutrition-Related Information Needs: A Case Study in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Annika MolenaarDepartment of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6037-4133
Dickson LukoseTabcorp Holdings Ltd, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2186-4740
Linda BrennanSchool of Media and Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1964-1487
Eva L JenkinsDepartment of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8750-5818
Tracy A McCaffreyDepartment of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9699-3083
Monash University · AULabCorp (United States) · USRMIT University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media has the potential to be of great value in understanding patterns in public health using large-scale analysis approaches (eg, data science and natural language processing [NLP]), 2 of which have been used in public health: sentiment analysis and topic modeling; however, their use in the area of food security and public health nutrition is limited.

objectiveThis study aims to explore the potential use of NLP tools to gather insights from real-world social media data on the public health issue of food security.

methodsA search strategy for obtaining tweets was developed using food security terms. Tweets were collected using the Twitter application programming interface from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021, filtered for Australia-based users only. Sentiment analysis of the tweets was performed using the Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner. Topic modeling exploring the content of tweets was conducted using latent Dirichlet allocation with BigML (BigML, Inc). Sentiment, topic, and engagement (the sum of likes, retweets, quotations, and replies) were compared across years.

resultsIn total, 38,070 tweets were collected from 14,880 Twitter users. Overall, the sentiment when discussing food security was positive, although this varied across the 3 years. Positive sentiment remained higher during the COVID-19 lockdown periods in Australia. The topic model contained 10 topics (in order from highest to lowest probability in the data set): "Global production," "Food insecurity and health," "Use of food banks," "Giving to food banks," "Family poverty," "Food relief provision," "Global food insecurity," "Climate change," "Australian food insecurity," and "Human rights." The topic "Giving to food banks," which focused on support and donation, had the highest proportion of positive sentiment, and "Global food insecurity," which covered food insecurity prevalence worldwide, had the highest proportion of negative sentiment. When compared with news, there were some events, such as COVID-19 support payment introduction and bushfires across Australia, that were associated with high periods of positive or negative sentiment. Topics related to food insecurity prevalence, poverty, and food relief in Australia were not consistently more prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic. Negative tweets received substantially higher engagement across 2019 and 2020. There was no clear relationship between topics that were more likely to be positive or negative and have higher or lower engagement, indicating that the identified topics are discrete issues.

conclusionsIn this study, we demonstrated the potential use of sentiment analysis and topic modeling to explore evolution in conversations on food security using social media data. Future use of NLP in food security requires the context of and interpretation by public health experts and the use of broader data sets, with the potential to track dimensions or events related to food security to inform evidence-based decision-making in this area.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaAttitudeAustraliaHumansNatural Language ProcessingPandemicsSentiment Analysisfood insecurityfood securityinfodemiologynatural language processingpublic healthsentiment analysistopic modeling

Identifiers

PMID38512326
PMCPMC10995791
OpenAlexW4393037953

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.