Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40547211›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2024

Sentiment analysis of internet posts on vaccination using ChatGPT and comparison with actual vaccination rates in South Korea.

Sunyoung Park

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Sunyoung ParkDepartment of Psychiatry, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, 10444, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1973-0073

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study used ChatGPT for sentiment analysis to investigate the possible links between online sentiments and COVID-19 vaccination rates. It also examines Internet posts to understand the attitudes and reasons associated with vaccine-related opinions. Methods: We collected 500,558 posts over 60 weeks from the Blind platform, mainly used by working individuals, and 854 relevant posts were analyzed. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant content, attitudes toward and reasons for vaccine opinions were studied through sentiment analysis. The study further correlated these categorized attitudes with the actual vaccination data. Results: The proportions of posts expressing positive, negative, and neutral attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines were 5%, 83%, and 12%, respectively. The total post count showed a positive correlation with the vaccination rate, indicating a high correlation between the number of negative posts about the vaccine and the vaccination rate. Negative attitudes were predominantly associated with societal distrust and perceived oppression. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the interplay between public perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines as expressed through social media and vaccination behavior. These correlations can serve as useful clues for devising effective vaccination strategies.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesInternetSocial MediaVaccinationGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansRepublic of KoreaSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesChatGPTCOVID-19sentiment analysisvaccination

Identifiers

PMID40547211
PMCPMC12179586

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.