ArticleBMC public health2025
Building an analytical framework for tobacco-related information on social media: an exploratory analysis with generative AI assistance.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
- An Exploratory Typology of Tobacco-Related Misleading Content on Social Media: Qualitative Analysis of Instagram and TikTok.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe propagation of tobacco-related information that is inconsistent with public health guide significantly impacts public health, particularly affecting people with less access to reliable information sources (such as those with lower education), who may also suffer disproportionate tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. This study develops a multi-dimensional analytical framework for identifying and categorizing tobacco-related information on social media. Using a dataset of tweets, the framework was constructed through qualitative analysis, which was then compared with an exploratory, AI-assisted analysis to assess the capabilities of current automated tools.
methodsA collection of 3.4 million tweets related to tobacco and nicotine was refined to 842,754 after removing irrelevant and duplicate posts. LDA topic modeling identified six unique topics, from which two randomly selected samples of tweets were drawn to perform qualitative analysis and AI-assisted analysis to identify categories of tobacco information.
resultsThe identified tobacco-related information was categorized by three dimensions (1) content, including safety and health effects, cessation, substance, and policy; (2) type of falsehood, which included fabrication and unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentations, and distortions; and (3) source, ranging from individuals and retail stores to advocacy groups and influencers. A notable finding was the prevalence of policy-related discussions of tobacco information on Twitter (X), highlighting this often-overlooked domain. The controversy over vaping has amplified pro-vaping voices on social media, with content frequently misinterpreting scientific findings, policies, and expert opinions, reflecting more nuanced and difficult to recognize falsehood in the misleading content.
conclusionThis study offers a comprehensive framework for analyzing tobacco-related information on social media, emphasizing key issues in policy debates and the presence of conspiracy narratives. This framework can inform the design of interventions for less informed populations and enhance data annotation for machine learning tasks.
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.