ArticleBMC public health2026
Spatiotemporal analysis of electronic cigarette discussion on Twitter/X using natural language processing.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become popular in recent years, particularly among the youth and young adults. This study aims to examine the spatiotemporal patterns of online discussion of e-cigarettes on Twitter/X.
methodsThrough the Twitter API (Application Programming Interface), over 3 million e-cigarette-related tweets were collected from March 11, 2021, to March 14, 2023, using related keywords, such as "e-cigarette" and "vaping". After data cleaning (such as removing duplicates and retweets) and filtering, 2,140,439 non-commercial tweets were identified. Two human coders independently hand-coded 300 randomly selected tweets regarding relevance (yes or no), sentiment (positive, negative, or neutral), and whether the Twitter user is a likely e-cigarette user (yes or no). An additional 2,000 randomly selected tweets were single-coded. The labeled 2,300 tweets were used to fine-tune a pre-trained RoBERTa (Robustly Optimized BERT) model, which achieved good performance (F1 scores > 0.7). The Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) method was used to identify the major topics in tweets with either positive or negative sentiment.
resultsWe observed a noticeable increase in the number of e-cigarette-related tweets, especially in the UK and Australia, during the study period. Nearly half of the tweets (49.7%, 1,063,317/2,140,439) were neutral. The proportion of tweets with a positive sentiment toward e-cigarettes was higher than that with a negative sentiment, at 27.0% vs. 23.3%. Except for Australia, in the US and UK, especially Canada, there were more positive tweets than negative ones. There was a rising trend in the proportion of tweets with a negative sentiment in the UK and Australia. Additionally, e-cigarette Twitter users were more likely to hold a positive sentiment toward e-cigarettes than non-users, 41.19% vs. 9.74%. Positive topics framed vaping as a desirable, emotionally driven alternative that supports smoking cessation, whereas negative topics emphasized health risks, youth harm, environmental concerns, and calls to quit despite perceived reduced harm.
conclusionsOnline sentiments of e-cigarettes on Twitter varied over time and across different countries. E-cigarette users and non-users held different sentiments toward e-cigarettes. Findings from this study provide timely monitoring in online discussion of e-cigarettes on social media, offering valuable guidance for future tobacco regulations.
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.