ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Expressions of uncertainty in online science communication hinder information diffusion.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engaging with uncertainty when engagement is uncertain.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Hedging, ambiguity, and the rejection of misinformation: evidence from Chinese readers.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Scientific publications that use promotional language in the abstract receive more citations and public attention.Communications psychology · 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
Despite the importance of transparent communication of uncertainty surrounding scientific findings, there are concerns that communicating uncertainty might damage the public perception and dissemination of science. Yet, a lack of empirical research on the potential impact of uncertainty communication on the diffusion of scientific findings poses challenges in assessing such claims. We studied the effect of uncertainty in a field study and a controlled experiment. In Study 1, a natural language processing analysis of over 2 million social media (Twitter/X) messages about scientific findings revealed that more uncertain messages were shared less often. Study 2 replicated this pattern using an experimental design where participants were presented with large-language-model (LLM)-generated high- and low-uncertainty messages. These results underscore the role of uncertainty in the dissemination of scientific findings and inform the ongoing debates regarding the benefits and the risks of uncertainty in science communication.
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.