49
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    1
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Automatically Appraising the Credibility of Vaccine-Related Web Pages Shared on Social Media: A Twitter Surveillance Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Tools used to appraise the credibility of health information are time-consuming to apply and require context-specific expertise, limiting their use for quickly identifying and mitigating the spread of misinformation as it emerges.

          Objective

          The aim of this study was to estimate the proportion of vaccine-related Twitter posts linked to Web pages of low credibility and measure the potential reach of those posts.

          Methods

          Sampling from 143,003 unique vaccine-related Web pages shared on Twitter between January 2017 and March 2018, we used a 7-point checklist adapted from validated tools and guidelines to manually appraise the credibility of 474 Web pages. These were used to train several classifiers (random forests, support vector machines, and recurrent neural networks) using the text from a Web page to predict whether the information satisfies each of the 7 criteria. Estimating the credibility of all other Web pages, we used the follower network to estimate potential exposures relative to a credibility score defined by the 7-point checklist.

          Results

          The best-performing classifiers were able to distinguish between low, medium, and high credibility with an accuracy of 78% and labeled low-credibility Web pages with a precision of over 96%. Across the set of unique Web pages, 11.86% (16,961 of 143,003) were estimated as low credibility and they generated 9.34% (1.64 billion of 17.6 billion) of potential exposures. The 100 most popular links to low credibility Web pages were each potentially seen by an estimated 2 million to 80 million Twitter users globally.

          Conclusions

          The results indicate that although a small minority of low-credibility Web pages reach a large audience, low-credibility Web pages tend to reach fewer users than other Web pages overall and are more commonly shared within certain subpopulations. An automatic credibility appraisal tool may be useful for finding communities of users at higher risk of exposure to low-credibility vaccine communications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications.

          The news media are an important source of information about new medical treatments, but there is concern that some coverage may be inaccurate and overly enthusiastic. We studied coverage by U.S. news media of the benefits and risks of three medications that are used to prevent major diseases. The medications were pravastatin, a cholesterol-lowering drug for the prevention of cardiovascular disease; alendronate, a bisphosphonate for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis; and aspirin, which is used for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. We analyzed a systematic probability sample of 180 newspaper articles (60 for each drug) and 27 television reports that appeared between 1994 and 1998. Of the 207 stories, 83 (40 percent) did not report benefits quantitatively. Of the 124 that did, 103 (83 percent) reported relative benefits only, 3 (2 percent) absolute benefits only, and 18 (15 percent) both absolute and relative benefits. Of the 207 stories, 98 (47 percent) mentioned potential harm to patients, and only 63 (30 percent) mentioned costs. Of the 170 stories citing an expert or a scientific study, 85 (50 percent) cited at least one expert or study with a financial tie to a manufacturer of the drug that had been disclosed in the scientific literature. These ties were disclosed in only 33 (39 percent) of the 85 stories. News-media stories about medications may include inadequate or incomplete information about the benefits, risks, and costs of the drugs as well as the financial ties between study groups or experts and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Using Expert Sources to Correct Health Misinformation in Social Media

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The biggest pandemic risk? Viral misinformation

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J. Med. Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                November 2019
                4 November 2019
                : 21
                : 11
                : e14007
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Centre for Health Informatics Australian Institute of Health Innovation Macquarie University Sydney Australia
                [2 ] Division of Information and Communication Technology, College of Science and Engineering Hamad Bin Khalifa University Doha Qatar
                [3 ] Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA United States
                [4 ] Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children’s Hospital Boston, MA United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Adam G Dunn adam.dunn@ 123456mq.edu.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7389-3274
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2299-2971
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2806-4834
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6444-6584
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9781-0477
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1720-8209
                Article
                v21i11e14007
                10.2196/14007
                6862002
                31682571
                9d73ef42-7cd4-41e6-9fce-3ef7cf859d18
                ©Zubair Shah, Didi Surian, Amalie Dyda, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D Mandl, Adam G Dunn. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 04.11.2019.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 17 March 2019
                : 6 May 2019
                : 29 June 2019
                : 2 September 2019
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                health misinformation,credibility appraisal,machine learning,social media
                Medicine
                health misinformation, credibility appraisal, machine learning, social media

                Comments

                Comment on this article