Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38904984›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Natural Language Processing-Powered Real-Time Monitoring Solution for Vaccine Sentiments and Hesitancy on Social Media: System Development and Validation.

Liang-Chin Huang, Amanda L Eiden, Long He, Augustine Annan, Siwei Wang, Jingqi Wang, Frank J Manion, Xiaoyan Wang, Jingcheng Du, Lixia Yao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Liang-Chin HuangMelax Tech, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5661-8940
Amanda L EidenMerck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9422-1215
Long HeMelax Tech, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8842-1841
Augustine AnnanMelax Tech, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2696-6765
Siwei WangMelax Tech, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3323-4803
Jingqi WangMelax Tech, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4574-1448
Frank J ManionMelax Tech, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1030-6348
Xiaoyan WangMelax Tech, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4193-4120
Jingcheng DuMelax Tech, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0322-4566
Lixia YaoMerck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5187-6120

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccines serve as a crucial public health tool, although vaccine hesitancy continues to pose a significant threat to full vaccine uptake and, consequently, community health. Understanding and tracking vaccine hesitancy is essential for effective public health interventions; however, traditional survey methods present various limitations.

objectiveThis study aimed to create a real-time, natural language processing (NLP)-based tool to assess vaccine sentiment and hesitancy across 3 prominent social media platforms.

methodsWe mined and curated discussions in English from Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X), Reddit, and YouTube social media platforms posted between January 1, 2011, and October 31, 2021, concerning human papillomavirus; measles, mumps, and rubella; and unspecified vaccines. We tested multiple NLP algorithms to classify vaccine sentiment into positive, neutral, or negative and to classify vaccine hesitancy using the World Health Organization's (WHO) 3Cs (confidence, complacency, and convenience) hesitancy model, conceptualizing an online dashboard to illustrate and contextualize trends.

resultsWe compiled over 86 million discussions. Our top-performing NLP models displayed accuracies ranging from 0.51 to 0.78 for sentiment classification and from 0.69 to 0.91 for hesitancy classification. Explorative analysis on our platform highlighted variations in online activity about vaccine sentiment and hesitancy, suggesting unique patterns for different vaccines.

conclusionsOur innovative system performs real-time analysis of sentiment and hesitancy on 3 vaccine topics across major social networks, providing crucial trend insights to assist campaigns aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and public health.

Indexed as

attitudeattitudesclassificationhesitancymachine learningnatural language processingNLPopinionperceptionperceptionsperspectiveperspectivesreal-time trackingsentimentsentimentssocial mediasocial media platformsuptakevaccinationvaccinationsvaccinevaccine hesitancyvaccinesvaccine sentimentwillingwillingness

Identifiers

PMID38904984
PMCPMC11226933

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.