Can the crowd judge truthfulness? A longitudinal study on recent misinformation about COVID-19.

Recently, the misinformation problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of non-expert is exploited. We study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess truthfulness during a pandemic, targeting statements related to COVID-19, thus addressing (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done. In our experiments, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, and to provide evidence for the assessments. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we report results on workers' behavior, agreement among workers, effect of aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background and bias. We perform a longitudinal study by re-launching the task multiple times with both novice and experienced workers, deriving important insights on how the behavior and quality change over time. Our results show that workers are able to detect and objectively categorize online (mis)information related to COVID-19; both crowdsourced and expert judgments can be transformed and aggregated to improve quality; worker background and other signals (e.g., source of information, behavior) impact the quality of the data. The longitudinal study demonstrates that the time-span has a major effect on the quality of the judgments, for both novice and experienced workers. Finally, we provide an extensive failure analysis of the statements misjudged by the crowd-workers.

Increasing adverse drug events extraction robustness on social media: Case study on negation and speculation.

In the last decade, an increasing number of users have started reporting adverse drug events (ADEs) on social media platforms, blogs, and health forums. Given the large volume of reports, pharmacovigilance has focused on ways to use natural language processing (NLP) techniques to rapidly examine these large collections of text, detecting mentions of drug-related adverse reactions to trigger medical investigations. However, despite the growing interest in the task and the advances in NLP, the robustness of these models in face of linguistic phenomena such as negations and speculations is an open research question. Negations and speculations are pervasive phenomena in natural language and can severely hamper the ability of an automated system to discriminate between factual and non-factual statements in text. In this article, we take into consideration four state-of-the-art systems for ADE detection on social media texts. We introduce SNAX, a benchmark to test their performance against samples containing negated and speculated ADEs, showing their fragility against these phenomena. We then introduce two possible strategies to increase the robustness of these models, showing that both of them bring significant increases in performance, lowering the number of spurious entities predicted by the models by 60% for negation and 80% for speculations.

Monitoring User Opinions and Side Effects on COVID-19 Vaccines in the Twittersphere: Infodemiology Study of Tweets.

BACKGROUND: In the current phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are witnessing the most massive vaccine rollout in human history. Like any other drug, vaccines may cause unexpected side effects, which need to be investigated in a timely manner to minimize harm in the population. If not properly dealt with, side effects may also impact public trust in the vaccination campaigns carried out by national governments. OBJECTIVE: Monitoring social media for the early identification of side effects, and understanding the public opinion on the vaccines are of paramount importance to ensure a successful and harmless rollout. The objective of this study was to create a web portal to monitor the opinion of social media users on COVID-19 vaccines, which can offer a tool for journalists, scientists, and users alike to visualize how the general public is reacting to the vaccination campaign. METHODS: We developed a tool to analyze the public opinion on COVID-19 vaccines from Twitter, exploiting, among other techniques, a state-of-the-art system for the identification of adverse drug events on social media; natural language processing models for sentiment analysis; statistical tools; and open-source databases to visualize the trending hashtags, news articles, and their factuality. All modules of the system are displayed through an open web portal. RESULTS: A set of 650,000 tweets was collected and analyzed in an ongoing process that was initiated in December 2020. The results of the analysis are made public on a web portal (updated daily), together with the processing tools and data. The data provide insights on public opinion about the vaccines and its change over time. For example, users show a high tendency to only share news from reliable sources when discussing COVID-19 vaccines (98% of the shared URLs). The general sentiment of Twitter users toward the vaccines is negative/neutral; however, the system is able to record fluctuations in the attitude toward specific vaccines in correspondence with specific events (eg, news about new outbreaks). The data also show how news coverage had a high impact on the set of discussed topics. To further investigate this point, we performed a more in-depth analysis of the data regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine. We observed how media coverage of blood clot-related side effects suddenly shifted the topic of public discussions regarding both the AstraZeneca and other vaccines. This became particularly evident when visualizing the most frequently discussed symptoms for the vaccines and comparing them month by month. CONCLUSIONS: We present a tool connected with a web portal to monitor and display some key aspects of the public's reaction to COVID-19 vaccines. The system also provides an overview of the opinions of the Twittersphere through graphic representations, offering a tool for the extraction of suspected adverse events from tweets with a deep learning model.