Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39934858›Full record

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.

Elham Sharifpoor, Maryam Okhovati, Mostafa Ghazizadeh-Ahsaee, Mina Avaz Beigi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

4 authors.

Elham SharifpoorMedical Library and Information Sciences Department, Medical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-9902-4245
Maryam OkhovatiMedical Library and Information Sciences Department, Medical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. okhovati.maryam@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0070-289X
Mostafa Ghazizadeh-AhsaeeDepartment of Computer Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-3482-7642
Mina Avaz BeigiDepartment of Computer Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-6047-5962

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Deep LearningInformation DisseminationMachine LearningSocial MediaHumansConvolutional neural networksCOVID-19Deep learningHealth information managementInformation disseminationMachine learningMisinformationTrustworthy information

Identifiers

PMID39934858
PMCPMC11817542

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.