Building an Analytical Framework for Tobacco-Related Misinformation on Social Media: An Exploratory Analysis with Generative AI Assistance
Han, E.; Feng, M.; Ling, P.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe propagation of tobacco-related misinformation significantly impacts public health, particularly affecting people with less access to reliable information sources (such as those with lower education), who may also su affer disproportionate tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. This study analyzed a dataset from Twitter to identify the characteristics of tobacco-related misinformation, with the goal of creating a framework for its identification, categorization, and validation. 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 misinformation. ResultsThe identified tobacco-related misinformation 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 misinformation 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 misinformation 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.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Perceptions of children and young people in England on the smokefree generation policy: a focus group study 94%
- Cost Comparison and Spending on Tobacco Products: Evidence from A Nationally Representative Sample of Adult E-Cigarette Users 94%
- Are the relevant risk factors being adequately captured in empirical studies of smoking initiation? A machine learning analysis based on the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing Compliance with Smoke-Free Laws in Purbakhola Rural Municipality, Nepal: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study 91%
- Use of machine learning methods to understand discussions of female genital mutilation/cutting on social media 91%
- A Mixed-Methods Comparison of Gender Differences in Alcohol Consumption and Drinking Characteristics among Patients in Moshi, Tanzania 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Social media discourse and internet search queries on cannabis as a medicine: A systematic review 93%
- E-cigarette use and Respiratory Symptoms in Residents of the United States: A BRFSS Report 93%
- Effectiveness of Online Training in Improving Primary Care Doctors Competency in Brief Tobacco Interventions: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial of WHO Modules in Delta State, Nigeria 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of a regional educational advertising campaign on harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, prevalence of e-cigarette use, and quit attempts among smokers 94%
- Associations between e-cigarette use and e-cigarette flavors with cigarette smoking quit attempts and quit success: Evidence from a US large, nationally representative 2018-2019 survey 94%
- E-cigarettes With Varenicline Versus Varenicline for Smoking Cessation: A Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.