ArticleMethodsX2024
Detecting health misinformation: A comparative analysis of machine learning and graph convolutional networks in classification tasks.
Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a tool for detecting misinformation risk in diet, nutrition, and health content (Diet-MisRAT).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in ovarian cancer: transforming detection, treatment, and prevention.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- AI-driven pharmacovigilance: Enhancing adverse drug reaction detection with deep learning and NLP.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Article
- Classifying and fact-checking health-related information about COVID-19 on Twitter/X using machine learning and deep learning models.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the digital age, the proliferation of health-related information online has heightened the risk of misinformation, posing substantial threats to public well-being. This research conducts a meticulous comparative analysis of classification models, focusing on detecting health misinformation. The study evaluates the performance of traditional machine learning models and advanced graph convolutional networks (GCN) across critical algorithmic metrics. The results comprehensively understand each algorithm's effectiveness in identifying health misinformation and provide valuable insights for combating the pervasive spread of false health information in the digital landscape. GCN with TF-IDF gives the best result, as shown in the result section. •The research method involves a comparative analysis of classification algorithms to detect health misinformation, exploring traditional machine learning models and graph convolutional networks.•This research used algorithms such as Passive Aggressive Classifier, Random Forest, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, Light GBM, GCN, GCN with BERT, GCN with TF-IDF, and GCN with Word2Vec were employed. Performance Metrics: Accuracy: for Passive Aggressive Classifier: 85.75 %, Random Forest: 86 %, Decision Tree: 81.30 %, Light BGM: 83.29 %, normal GCN: 84.53 %, GCN with BERT: 85.00 %, GCN with TR-IDF: 93.86 % and GCN with word2Vec: 81.00 %•Algorithmic performance metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, were systematically evaluated to assess the efficacy of each model in detecting health misinformation, focusing on understanding the strengths and limitations of different approaches. The superior performance of Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) with TF-IDF embedding, achieving an accuracy of 93.86.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.