ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Classifying and fact-checking health-related information about COVID-19 on Twitter/X using machine learning and deep learning models.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strategies and prerequisites for combating health misinformation on social media: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- AI-driven techniques for detection and mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 spread: a review, taxonomy, and trends.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Medication-Related Information on Social Media: Exploring Public Trust, Perceptions of Credibility, and Influence on Behavior.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a tool for detecting misinformation risk in diet, nutrition, and health content (Diet-MisRAT).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies Against Health Misinformation: A Scoping Review of Public Health Responses.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
backgroundDespite recent progress in misinformation detection methods, further investigation is required to develop more robust fact-checking models with particular consideration for the unique challenges of health information sharing. This study aimed to identify the most effective approach for detecting and classifying reliable information versus misinformation health content shared on Twitter/X related to COVID-19.
methodsWe have used 7 different machine learning/deep learning models. Tweets were collected, processed, labeled, and analyzed using relevant keywords and hashtags, then classified into two distinct datasets: "Trustworthy information" versus "Misinformation", through a labeling process. The cosine similarity metric was employed to address oversampling the minority of the Trustworthy information class, ensuring a more balanced representation of both classes for training and testing purposes. Finally, the performance of the various fact-checking models was analyzed and compared using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score ROC curve, and AUC.
resultsFor measures of accuracy, precision, F1 score, and recall, the average values of TextConvoNet were found to be 90.28, 90.28, 90.29, and 0.9030, respectively. ROC AUC was 0.901."Trustworthy information" class achieved an accuracy of 85%, precision of 93%, recall of 86%, and F1 score of 89%. These values were higher than other models. Moreover, its performance in the misinformation category was even more impressive, with an accuracy of 94%, precision of 88%, recall of 94%, and F1 score of 91%.
conclusionThis study showed that TextConvoNet was the most effective in detecting and classifying trustworthy information V.S misinformation related to health issues that have been shared on Twitter/X.
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.