Tag: social media

Categories : General InterestTags :

Heart Doctors’ Twitter Popularity Is Unrelated to Their Publications

On By ModernMedia
Phone with popular social media apps including Facebook and Twitter. Photo by Tracy Le Blanc from Pexels.

Having large numbers of widely cited publications has no bearing on the Twitter popularity of academics in the interventional cardiology community, a new study has found. 

The study, by Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico “G Rodolico-San Marco” in Catania, Italy, and colleagues, found that academic impact through papers and citations, as calculated by the Hirsch index (or h-index) was found to be unrelated to whether or not academics were in the top quartile of Twitter followers (> 736 followers).

“Indeed, accounts generating a stream of valuable content are more likely to be followed. In addition, some accounts may take advantage of celebrity to amplify their success, in a kind of incremental cycle,” wrote the authors.
Rather, Twitter followers were defined by factors mostly related to time and effort spent on the platform.

Having abundant tweets (> 505 tweets, adjusted OR 16.39), along with individual charisma (‘Kardashian index’ >5, adjusted OR 8.66), were the most significant predictors. Large number of accounts user follows (> 309 following), tweet rate (> 2.6 tweets per week), a large cooperation network and being affiliated to the US were also predictive of the heart doctors’ Twitter popularity.

“Indeed, accounts generating a stream of valuable content are more likely to be followed. In addition, some accounts may take advantage of celebrity to amplify their success, in a kind of incremental cycle,” according to the authors.

Individual charisma per the ‘Kardashian index‘, which measures discrepancy between social media reputation and publication record, was not a significant factor in the rate at which someone amassed followers.

“In aggregate, our results suggest that a prediction rule for durable popularity on Twitter is to be active and generate valuable contents rather than relying on individual academic or social reputation,” Capodanno’s team concluded.

An earlier study had shown that the reverse was true; the more Twitter followers, the greater their academic standing.
Limitations include not being able to account for anonymous or pseudonym accounts, and the results may not be generalisable to the interventional cardiology community as a whole.

Source: MedPage Today

Journal information: D’Arrigo P, et al “Determinants of popularity and natural history of social media accounts in interventional cardiology” JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.01.021.

Categories : Ethics and Law General InterestTags :

Op-ed: Facebook Medical ‘Fact Checking’ Has No Room for Debate

On By ModernMedia

Fact-checking is increasingly important in an era of disinformation on social media, especially with the current COVID pandemic, but an article for MedPage Today calls into question the process for Facebook’s medical fact-checking.

After an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Marty Makary, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins professor and editor-in-chief at MedPage Today, was labelled “misleading” by Facebook fact checkers, another op-ed in MedPage Today asks how the social media giant is choosing its medical fact-checkers. 

Mystified by why this would be labelled “misleading” by Facebook, and setting aside the ‘veracity’ of the article, Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, a haematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, investigated the website HealthFeedback.org that Facebook uses to fact-check some of its medical articles. 

The process involves two to four reviewers chosen to examine an article. Prior to the COVID pandemic, medical fact checking appears to have been done by academics, but the flood of disinformation has resulted in the change of this process, Dr Prasad noted.  

In one instance, a reviewer for the article was selected because he had already written an article critical of Dr Markary’s op-ed: in other words, he was selected because he had already announced his bias.

The website’s picking and choosing of reviewers “felt like a high school clique”, Dr Prasad wrote. One that allowed them to confirm their previously held ideas about COVID and extinguish differing viewpoints. Labelling the alternative views as misleading “instantly usurps the reader of their ability to make up their own mind. It is antithetical to the spirit of the academy.”

He found that the fact-checkers typically had large Twitter followings, while the typical medical professor seems to have them in the hundreds. This makes sense, Dr Prasad wrote, as leading academics and authorities are likely too busy to be courting large numbers of followers on Twitter.
Other than a “vague explanation” of the feedback process, Dr Prasad could not find any information on how Facebook chooses its reviewers, which of the billions of posts and articles on Facebook to fact-check, whether anyone is paid and how appeals are made.

Source: MedPage Today