ArticleScientific reports2025
Easy-access online social media metrics are associated with misinformation sharing activity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Misinformation poses a significant challenge studied extensively by researchers, yet acquiring data to identify primary sharers is time-consuming and challenging. To address this, we propose a low-barrier approach to differentiate social media users who are more likely to share misinformation from those who are less likely. Leveraging insights from previous studies, we demonstrate that easy-access online social network metrics-average daily tweet count, and account age-can be leveraged to help identify potential low factuality content spreaders on X (previously known as Twitter). We find that higher tweet frequency is positively associated with low factuality in shared content, while account age is negatively associated with it. We also find that some of the effects differ depending on the number of accounts a user follows. Our findings show that relying on these easy-access social network metrics could serve as a low-barrier approach for initial identification of users who are more likely to spread misinformation, and therefore contribute to combating misinformation effectively on social media platforms.
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.