ArticlePloS one2025
Dynamics and triggers of misinformation on vaccines.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Covid-19 pandemic has sparked renewed attention to the risks of online misinformation, emphasizing its impact on individuals' quality of life through the spread of health-related myths and misconceptions. In this study, we analyze 6 years (2016-2021) of Italian vaccine debate across diverse social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube), encompassing all major news sources-both questionable and reliable. We first use the symbolic transfer entropy analysis of news production time-series to dynamically determine which category of sources, questionable or reliable, causally drives the agenda on vaccines. Then, leveraging deep learning models capable to accurately classify vaccine-related content based on the conveyed stance and discussed topic, respectively, we evaluate the focus on various topics by news sources promoting opposing views and compare the resulting user engagement. Our study uncovers misinformation not as a parasite of the news ecosystem that merely opposes the perspectives offered by mainstream media, but as an autonomous force capable of even overwhelming the production of vaccine-related content from the latter. While the pervasiveness of misinformation is evident in the significantly higher engagement of questionable sources compared to reliable ones (up to 11 times higher in median value), our findings underscore the need for consistent and thorough pro-vax coverage to counter this imbalance. This is especially important for sensitive topics, where the risk of misinformation spreading and potentially exacerbating negative attitudes toward vaccines is higher. While reliable sources have successfully promoted vaccine efficacy, reducing anti-vax impact, gaps in pro-vax coverage on vaccine safety led to the highest engagement with anti-vax content.
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.