Public perception of COVID-19 vaccines through analysis of Twitter content and users
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255701: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Institutional review board approval was not required because this study used only publicly available data. Sex as a biological variable To better understand demographic differences, we applied a previously validated deep learning system through the m3inference library36 to infer the account user as an individual or an organization and if labeled as an individual, their gender (female or male) and age group (≤18 years old, 19-29 years old, 30-39 years old, and ≥ 40 years old) based on multimodal input that includes username, display name, description, and profile picture image. Randomization We manually reviewed a random subsample of 1,000 tweets and verified the tweets’ relevance to the … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255701: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Institutional review board approval was not required because this study used only publicly available data. Sex as a biological variable To better understand demographic differences, we applied a previously validated deep learning system through the m3inference library36 to infer the account user as an individual or an organization and if labeled as an individual, their gender (female or male) and age group (≤18 years old, 19-29 years old, 30-39 years old, and ≥ 40 years old) based on multimodal input that includes username, display name, description, and profile picture image. Randomization We manually reviewed a random subsample of 1,000 tweets and verified the tweets’ relevance to the topic of COVID-19 vaccination. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted using Python, version 3.8.2 (Python Software foundation). Pythonsuggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
