The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An “Infodemic”: Leveraging High-Volume Twitter Data to Understand Early Public Sentiment for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak
Open accessAbstract
Background: Twitter has been used to track trends and disseminate health information during viral epidemics. On January 21, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention activated its Emergency Operations Center and the World Health Organization released its first situation report about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), sparking significant media attention. How Twitter content and sentiment evolved in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been described. Methods: We extracted tweets matching hashtags related to COVID-19 from January 14 to 28, 2020 using Twitter’s application programming interface. We measured themes and frequency of keywords related to infection prevention practices. We performed a sentiment analysis to identify the sentiment polarity and predominant emotions in tweets and conducted topic modeling to identify and explore discussion topics over time. We compared sentiment, emotion, and topics among the most popular tweets, defined by the number of retweets. Results: We evaluated 126 049 tweets from 53 196 unique users. The hourly number of COVID-19-related tweets starkly increased from January 21, 2020 onward. Approximately half (49.5%) of all tweets expressed fear and approximately 30% expressed surprise. In the full cohort, the economic and political impact of COVID-19 was the most commonly discussed topic. When focusing on the most retweeted tweets, the incidence of fear decreased and topics focused on quarantine efforts, the outbreak and its transmission, as well as prevention. Conclusions: Twitter is a rich medium that can be leveraged to understand public sentiment in real-time and potentially target individualized public health messages based on user interest and emotion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: A scoping review
Tsao, S.-F., Chen, H., Tisseverasinghe, T., Yang, Y., Li, L., & Butt, Z. A. (2021) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30315-0 · Cited by 816
Golinelli, D., Boetto, E., Carullo, G., Nuzzolese, A. G., Landini, M. P., & Fantini, M. P. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/22280 · Cited by 574
Okan, O., Bollweg, T. M., Berens, E.-M., Hurrelmann, K., Bauer, U., & Schaeffer, D. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17155503 · Cited by 418
Twitter discussions and emotions about the COVID-19 pandemic: Machine learning approach
Xue, J., Chen, J., Hu, R., Chen, C., Zheng, C., Su, Y., & Zhu, T. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/20550 · Cited by 369
Chatbots: Security, privacy, data protection, and social aspects
Hasal, M., Nowaková, J., Ahmed Saghair, K., Abdulla, H., Snášel, V., & Ogiela, L. (2021) · Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.6426 · Cited by 249
Metadata
- Authors
- Medford, R. J., Saleh, S. N., Sumarsono, A., Perl, T. M., & Lehmann, C. U.
- Venue
- Open Forum Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-06-30
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- ofaa258-ofaa258
- ISSN
- 2328-8957 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3040122176
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 60.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An “Infodemic”: Leveraging High-Volume Twitter Data to Understand Early Public Sentiment for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ofid/ofaa258
- The paper
- Medford, R. J., Saleh, S. N., Sumarsono, A., Perl, T. M., & Lehmann, C. U. (2020). An “Infodemic”: Leveraging High-Volume Twitter Data to Understand Early Public Sentiment for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa258
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.