ArticleJMIR infodemiology2026
Investigating Online Discussions About Cancer Screening on Twitter (Subsequently Rebranded as X): Corpus Analysis.
Article in JMIR infodemiology, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While cancer screening is proven to be effective in the early detection of the disease and early detection enables better treatment options, screening uptake has been declining. Research shows that online health information helps people to make health-related decisions. However, not all online health information is credible, and misinformation might play a role in people's choice to take part in screening. Objective: This study aimed to analyze online discussions about cancer screening programs using corpus analysis. Specifically, we aimed to investigate the full dataset through corpus analysis and misinformation in a manually coded subset. This enabled us to study naturalistic discussions about cancer screening over time, what information people share, and how prevalent misinformation is in these discussions. We differentiated tweets on Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X) for cervical, breast, colorectal, and general screening. Methods: We extracted a corpus of 55,403 tweets from 2011 to 2023, tweeted by 22,493 users from a database containing over 5.9 billion tweets. We used specific search strings corresponding to different types of screening to gather our corpus. The corpus consisted of tweets, timestamps, hashtags, and shared URLs. We used a machine learning classifier trained on another dataset of tweets about cancer screening to automatically code whether a tweet fell within the scope of the study. We manually coded a randomly drawn stratified subset of 1200 tweets representative of the full corpus regarding year and screening program for the presence of misinformation. Results: Tweets were not uniformly distributed across different screening programs and over time ( Conclusions: Our findings reveal that cancer screening programs are actively debated across social media platforms. We observed that conversations tend to spike in response to real-world events, suggesting social media can serve as a valuable lens into public reactions to health policy changes. Link-sharing behavior was common, though we noted a tendency for sources to reference back to the same platform where discussions originated. Despite finding limited instances of misinformation, we caution that even modest amounts of inaccurate information may have meaningful consequences for public health messaging and screening uptake.
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.