Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39938078›Full record

ArticleJMIR infodemiology2025

Identifying Misinformation About Unproven Cancer Treatments on Social Media Using User-Friendly Linguistic Characteristics: Content Analysis.

Ilona Fridman, Dahlia Boyles, Ria Chheda, Carrie Baldwin-SoRelle, Angela B Smith, Jennifer Elston Lafata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Ilona FridmanLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6130-3134
Dahlia BoylesDepartment of Communication, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1918-3666
Ria ChhedaComputer Science Department, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-8269-2275
Carrie Baldwin-SoRelleHealth Sciences Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3130-881X
Angela B SmithLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3930-9817
Jennifer Elston LafataLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8550-6195

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth misinformation, prevalent in social media, poses a significant threat to individuals, particularly those dealing with serious illnesses such as cancer. The current recommendations for users on how to avoid cancer misinformation are challenging because they require users to have research skills.

objectiveThis study addresses this problem by identifying user-friendly characteristics of misinformation that could be easily observed by users to help them flag misinformation on social media.

methodsUsing a structured review of the literature on algorithmic misinformation detection across political, social, and computer science, we assembled linguistic characteristics associated with misinformation. We then collected datasets by mining X (previously known as Twitter) posts using keywords related to unproven cancer therapies and cancer center usernames. This search, coupled with manual labeling, allowed us to create a dataset with misinformation and 2 control datasets. We used natural language processing to model linguistic characteristics within these datasets. Two experiments with 2 control datasets used predictive modeling and Lasso regression to evaluate the effectiveness of linguistic characteristics in identifying misinformation.

resultsUser-friendly linguistic characteristics were extracted from 88 papers. The short-listed characteristics did not yield optimal results in the first experiment but predicted misinformation with an accuracy of 73% in the second experiment, in which posts with misinformation were compared with posts from health care systems. The linguistic characteristics that consistently negatively predicted misinformation included tentative language, location, URLs, and hashtags, while numbers, absolute language, and certainty expressions consistently predicted misinformation positively.

conclusionsThis analysis resulted in user-friendly recommendations, such as exercising caution when encountering social media posts featuring unwavering assurances or specific numbers lacking references. Future studies should test the efficacy of the recommendations among information users.

Indexed as

CommunicationLinguisticsNeoplasmsSocial MediaHumansNatural Language Processingalternative therapycancerlinguistic characteristicslinguistic featuresLinguistic Inquiry and Word Countliterature reviewmachine learningmisinformationnatural language processingoncologyreview methodologysearchsocial mediasynthesisTwitterX

Identifiers

PMID39938078
PMCPMC11888050

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.